ASEAN’s Inaction on Burma / Myanmar
It’s seems that the situation is worsening. After our only glimmer of hope from the UN, Mr Ibrahim Gambari, left, the junta takes its retaliations one step further by “sending troops to drag people from their homes in the middle of the night and letting others know they were marked for retribution”.
I’m disappointed that ASEAN, chaired by Singapore’s Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong, was merely “most disturbed“. In a letter to Senior General Than Shwe of Myanmar, Mr Lee wrote -
“We are most disturbed by reports of the violent means that the authorities in Myanmar have deployed against the demonstrators, which have resulted in injuries and deaths.”
I’m still hopeful. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said that he “made it quite clear that that it is the political responsibility, collective responsibility, of ASEAN — and I’m going to take it as a high priority issue”.
When such atrocities are happening in our neighbourhood (I’m a Singaporean), the worst thing that we can do is nothing. ASEAN’s inaction on this issue is nothing short of inadequate.
Let me remind everyone, especially Singaporeans, that one of ASEAN’s objective is to -
The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are: (1) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and (2) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Now, shouldn’t we be doing something?
Related Links
1. Dashing hopes in Myanmar - The Economist
2. Myanmar Troops Stage Nighttime Arrests - AP
3. PM Lee expresses deep concerns over Myanmar - CNA
4. U.N. chief plans to discuss future action on Myanmar with Security Council on Friday - IHT
5. Overview - ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS
October 4th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
ASEAN has always pursued a policy of non-intervention and refrain from commenting on domestic politics of its members. To have a strongly worded memo is already pushing it liao.
Still, it is Burma’s domestic problem - human rights or not - they have to deal with it on their own terms. It is sad what’s happening there - a regime showing its insecurities in such a violent manner.
Unfortunately, whatever happens to Burma will not not have economic repercussions in the region. So there’s nothing to knee-jerk anyone to action. Send in medical & food aid - that’s what they need now - not sympathy and empty words.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Miccheng - Thank you for that alternative perspective.
I think it’s always a challenge to balance between non-intervention and social justice.
The position of non-intervention works when there is an existing political structure within the subject country which is representative of the people’s wishes.
When the people’s wishes are clearly otherwise, the policy of non-intervention fails.
I think when the ruling regime is using arms to overpower the people, has a history and continued intention of minority marginalisation, systematic raping, enforced prostitution, internally displacement its own people and denying election results,
an insistence on non-intervention may prove to be very difficult to justify.
At this moment, the Burmese do not need, and may never need, material help. Afterall, they are one of the richest countries in SEA (in terms of natural resources).
What they require is international pressure against the ruling regime for an immediate stop in violence and a start towards democratisation.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Its all the fault of the British for leaving too fast. The same thing could have happened to Spore in the 1960s too. But thankfully, and you’ve got to thank our leaders for it - a coup didn’t happen.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:04 am
“Conditional non-intervention” is a very dangerous thing. Who’s to arbitrate what constitutes a “just” intervention?
Non-intervention was the only reason why ASEAN can exist. Guarantees of national sovereignty within the regional bloc is the only way that our leaders would agree to sit down to talk. The honest truth is that the member states can’t stand each other and find it especially “disrespectful” to comment on others’ internal matters.
It is a fallacy to think that democratisation will lead to more justice and social equality (and less violence). Just look at Taiwan, Thailand and Germany in WW2. More recently we also see American-style “democracy” weakening national sovereignty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have a suspicion that the monks are innocent victims - political pawns from insurgents bent on destabilizing the regime. If u ask me, the insurgents from so called democratic parties are just as bad as the junta itself - feeding their own people to the proverbial lions.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:27 am
[…] Comments Xboy on Daily ChioBu: FHM Girl Next Do…GaryKoh on SG Daily Special: Free Burma!…kelvin quee on SG Daily Special: Free Burma!…chillycrabs on Daily ChioBu: FHM Girl Next Do…bizaroo on Daily […]
October 5th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Hi Kelvin,
I’ve responded to your comment on my blog. Thanks for raising it for clarification.
WRT to your post, your emphasis on ‘peace’, ’stability’ and ‘justice’ misses the crucial point that the ASEAN Declaration is about ‘the relationship between countries’ which actually reinforces the non-interference principle.
In any case, ‘ASEAN’ doesn’t even the legal powers and personality in international law to do anything substantial (that may change depending on the contents of the ASEAN Charter due for approval this Nov); implementation of policies remains a matter for member-states rather than the ASEAN organization.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Miccheng,
The question of whether democracy should be ‘imposed’ on Burma is separate from that of whether we should intervene to stop the bloodshed in Burma. Whatever you think of democracy, you have to agree that the current Burmese government is highly immoral (more so than the majority of the world’s countries) and it would be difficult for the situation to get worse. Even a Singapore-style, undemocratic govt would be a better scenario than the current scenario. The majority of democratic countries are better governed than Burma (again, this is not a far-fetched assertion). So citing the failings of particular democracies in the past is no argument against the need to change the current Burmese situation.
Secondly, your examples of ‘failed’ democracies are misleading. Germany in WW2 was not a democracy — Hitler had made himself a dictator by then. It is in fact a lesson in the evils of authoritarianism. Iraq and Afghanistan are in a mess not because of democracy, but because of foreign invasion, local insurgencies and many other matters. Democracy is the last thing to be blamed for suffering that is going on in those countries. Finally, present-day Taiwan is, I think, doing just fine as a democracy. I’d rather live in Taiwan than in China.
How has the opposition in Burma ‘fed’ anyone to the lions? Nobody forced the monks to march. You wouldn’t be beaten, arrested or killed if you chose not to march. Only one side is killing people for not doing as they say.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:42 am
My daddy said not to say anything.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Ringisei -
Thank you for pointing out the notion of non-interference again.
Granted that ASEAN might not have the legal means to “enforce” upon its member states,
I foolishly still think that these principles are only valid if, and only if,
the people of the state have the right to choose their government.
Otherwise, this sort of non-interference in the face of such atrocities is simply unethical.
Tell me then - what does it say about Singapore?
I want to challenge readers here to consider the alternative -
Had Singapore/ASEAN chose to impose sanctions and an arms embargo swiftly, how would the world look upon us? I foolishly think that it would be a very much more positive image.
I’m not schooled in this subject. Please - tell me if I’m wrong.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
twasher:
Nice strategy of taking the “moral high ground” to justify intervention. Again, it begs the question - who’s to arbitrate what constitutes a higher ground or justified stand?
Painful as it is, with no legal basis for ASEAN to intervene (as ringisei rightly stated), the only thing we can do is put pressure. Then again, an immoral leader doesn’t listen to anyone other than their inner demons - and they are screaming for blood for this undermining of their authority.
I had refrained from using Hitler’s name. If u remember, his political party came into power via democratic means - he wasn’t a dictator then when he first came into power.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, i would agree that democracy wasn’t the main cause - but the US used democracy as one of their justification in fighting the war. War on terrorist - just war or unjust - any form of war is bad.
Democracy is foreign idea to the people there. What they see are merely US cronies running the govt in an “American” way. Puppets to the puppet master - of course they are weak. Iraq was more stable under Saddam - in spite of its failings.
Borrowing a phrase from Jesus: “Let the first nation with no sin cast the first missle.”
October 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Kelvin Quee
We shouldn’t be too conscious about how other nation states look upon our actiosn (or lack thereof).
Those nations who criticse Burma ain’t here to suffer the political fallout. To American human-rights activists - Burma is merely an idea - an idea that thousands of miles away.
For us in the region, Burma’s our neighbour. Like it or not, we can’t change our geography or nuke them out of Asia. Conflicts have to be managed - yes, but it is the neighbouring states that bear the brunt of it.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
twasher:
I am not there in Burma to see it for myself. But from the photos, i often see a rabble rousing monk leading the pack. They don’t seem to fit our perceived mould of how a monk should behave - quiet serene and mostly unconcerned with earthly matters which is impermanent.
It just begs the question… did they do this on their own or was it just a few passionate pleas inciting Buddhist scripture to justify some form of collective action for a just cause?
October 6th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Miccheng:
If you are a moral relativist then this argument ends here. Without a standard for morality there is no guide as to why we should do anything rather than other things.
Ringisei did not state that there is no legal basis for ASEAN to intervene. He merely showed that if you suscribe to certain assumptions (the definition of pragmatism he stated, the assumption that the role of a govt is such-and-such), then ASEAN should not intervene. This is a separate question from whether there is a ‘legal basis’ for ASEAN to intervene. Hell, it doesn’t even tell us whether there is a moral basis for intervention unless we accept those assumptions. If you want to accept those assumptions then you need separate justifications for them.
October 7th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Kelvin, thanks for your response and your very thoughtful challenge to consider the alternative.
Certainly Singapore’s image would be raised among liberal democracies if we imposed sanctions that targetted the Myanmar junta. However that might serve as a precedent and a jusitification for other ASEAN states decided to comment or interfere in Singapore’s domestic politics, which in turn might create problems for the establishment here. I think your challenge demonstrates starkly how foreign policy is linked to our domestic political arrangements and how we can think differently about the latter too due to what has happened in Myanmar.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t.”
Many of those pushing for democracy fail to appreciate the chaos and anarchy that may ensue if the current regime is ousted. Myanmar - or Burma - is made up of many ethnicities that will fracture the state if given the chance. One needs only to look at Bosnia and Croatia as previous examples of how intervention made things worse in certain ways. Some may even argue that the army - the one committing the current atrocities - is the only thing that prevents mass genocide.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m against the regime’s extremities and pro-democracy too. But it is easy for those of us who sit fat and happy in our own comforts to preach democracy and point fingers, without considering the bigger picture.