Myanmar Coup and ASEAN’s Response
Myanmar's political history is riffed with repressive government policies, civil war and military rule. This has resulted in a long history of political demonstrations and protests by the citizens as the isolationist economic policies have led to widespread poverty across the country. Myanmar has been ruled by the military junta since it has gained independence from British rule in 1948. Post-independence, like most of its newly decolonised neighbours, Myanmar started with a parliamentary democracy. But the democracy was short-lived as in 1962, General Ne Win led a military coup and held power for the next twenty-six years. Since then, there has always been a tussle for power between the military and the National League of Democracy, the democratic party of the country. The governance in Myanmar has been heavily dominated by the military even if it has had democratic rule from 2015. Therefore, a coup in February, was just a repetition of the history.
While the coup did not come as a surprise, the sheer boldness and the desperation in which the military seized power from the democratic government showcased the radicalisation of the state instruments. The role of state instruments like military is the provide national security to its citizens. But in the case of Myanmar, the military has turned against its own people, the supporters of the democratic government led by Aung San Suu Kyi.
The general elections of the country were scheduled to on 8 November 2020. The National League for Democracy, the leading civilian party won the elections with 83 percent of the seats being in their favour. The military did not accept the results as it mainly saw the voting result as a fraudulent referendum in favour Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of NLD. The military threatened to take action even when the legitimacy of the election result was tried in Supreme Court. The soldiers surrounded the Parliament through a coup d'état on 1st February 2021 and thus began the military rule in Myanmar.
The emergency was announced on national television and military quoted the 2008 constitution, which allows the military to impose a national emergency. The state of emergency was imposed across Myanmar and will remain in place for one year. The imposition of emergency has led to a brutal clampdown on the fundamental rights and freedom of the civilians. Telephone and internet services were shut down in major cities along with the suspension of television broadcasts. Domestic and international flights were suspended too and the military quickly seized the control of the domestic infrastructure. Banks, markets and daily need stores were shut down.
Post the imposition of the emergency, civilians took to streets to peacefully protest against the military rule. But the protests turned deadly when two unarmed protestors, one of which was a teenager, were brutally killed by the security forces. Millions across the country gathered on the streets and thus, began a movement of civil disobedience across the country.
Since then, the confrontations between the security forces and civilian protestors have taken a bloody turn as several of them have been killed and hundreds injured. Now the frontline protestors are mobilizing into a guerrilla force. At the same time, they have built barricades and temporary gates to protect the neighbourhoods from brutal military attacks and have even learnt how make and use smoke bombs. Their idea is to give the military a taste of its own medicine. But these actions will definitely will not be enough to stop the military and its barbarous suppression of the people.
While leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi may be able to counter the military rule by garnering public support, the army chief, Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing has a tight grip over the current governance. What gives him the power is his network of patronage which is based on his lucrative family business. The General has also been able to gain support from two business conglomerates in the country and has already has appointed ministers to oversee police and broader security of the country and its borders.
While the protestors and activists, through their social media and activities, have tried to gain international attention; the international community has been spineless in its response to the abuse of human rights in Myanmar. While several leaders of the country quickly condemned the coup and demanded that the military must free Ms. Suu Kyi and the other detained government officials, no concrete actions have been taken. Biden, who has portrayed his government as the flagbearer of human rights and freedom as a foreign policy priority, joined EU in imposing the sanctions in late March condemning the violence. International organisations like UN have expressed its support to the civilians fighting for democracy. But condemning is not enough!
According to a UN Report on military emergencies and its impact on the civilians, it has been observed that regional organisations are more equipped to deal with the matters of human rights abuses in their neighbourhood as they can pressurize the government to negotiate with the civilians. However, in this case, ASEAN continues to sit on the fence even as matters seem to get worse in Myanmar. The government of Thailand, which itself came to power via coup in 2014, has refused to comment on the situation citing that it’s the internal matter of the country. At the same time, Vietnam and Cambodia (both have authoritarian governments) and Philippines (Duterte has unleashed a war on democracy in his own country) have refused to show solidarity with the pro-democracy protestors. However, Malaysia and Indonesia took a stand on this matter and criticized the military for unleashing deadly violence on the civilians.
However, despite the spinelessness shown by more than half of the member states of ASEAN, a summit was called on 2 March where General Min Aung Hlaing was invited to negotiate on the de-escalation of the violence and emergency in Myanmar. It is interesting to note that no civilian organisation or member from the democratic government from Myanmar was invited for this meeting. On 24 April 'Five Points of Consensus', an agreement on five issues to facilitate peaceful solution for the current crisis in Myanmar was agreed upon. However, after the signing of agreement, nothing has been done.
While commenting and calling out the human rights abuses of an ASEAN member by the other parties of ASEAN may be considered a development given the organisations ineffectual past, ASEAN continues to act like a barking dog with no capacity to bite. Sadly, such a callous response is consistent with the 'ASEAN way' of diplomacy where most of the times, the organisation has kept itself away from commenting and calling out the bigotry of its own members. ASEAN has made a joke of its own human rights and freedom charter as the organisation's diplomacy does nothing to solve or even talk about the human rights abuses.
ASEAN’s way of diplomacy and its legitimacy are on a thin rope right now, especially in the aftermath of pandemic where the regional cooperation was weak. Failure to take action in the Myanmar crises would not only break the rope on which its legitimacy is being balanced but would also increase the instability in the region, which is still dealing with an ongoing pandemic. It could lead to another refugee crises as people have already started fleeing to Thailand and India. There is a need for dialogue and inclusion of the democratic alliances of Myanmar in the dialogue. ASEAN should stress on the need to end the violence in the country and till then should take strict actions by imposing sanction on the junta military. Imposing an arms embargo and more support to the civilians in form of humanitarian assistance would help weaken the junta. To uphold the principles of democracy and freedom and protect the fundamental rights of the people, ASEAN needs to develop a spine and do away with its commitment issues. And if not, then the organisation will lose respect (of what is left) in the international arena!
Pic Courtesy- Nandan Singh Bhaisora, former Consulate General, Mandalay
(The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)
