Prof. Syed Munir Khasru
South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
July 31, 2022
________________________________
A year and a half after Myanmar’s military takeover, the country has carried out its first executions in decades. It announced on Monday that four men had been executed. Among them were a former National League for Democracy lawmaker and a pro-democracy activist, accused of aiding “terror acts” in a closed-door trial.
Myanmar’s governing military defended the executions as “justice for the people”, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has denounced them. A statement issued by Cambodia, the current Asean chair, described the use of the death penalty “just a week before the 55th Asean ministerial meeting” as “highly reprehensible” and damaging to regional efforts to establish peace in Myanmar.
Such a rebuke from Asean is rare. Although Myanmar’s military junta was at first prohibited from attending high-level Asean meetings, more recently this stance appears to have shifted. Indeed, the presence of junta representatives at the Asean Defence Ministers’ meeting in June has called into question Asean’s commitment to upholding the democratic rights of Myanmar’s population.
Asean has been criticised before for sidelining human rights in the pursuit of economic integration. In 2017, the 50th anniversary of the bloc’s founding, Teddy Baguilat, a board member of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), called on the group to strengthen its rights framework: “We must push back against moves of autocrats and populist leaders to demonise human rights advocates and trivialise human rights issues”.
A year and a half after Myanmar’s military takeover, the country has carried out its first executions in decades. It announced on Monday that four men had been executed. Among them were a former National League for Democracy lawmaker and a pro-democracy activist, accused of aiding “terror acts” in a closed-door trial.
Myanmar’s governing military defended the executions as “justice for the people”, while the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has denounced them. A statement issued by Cambodia, the current Asean chair, described the use of the death penalty “just a week before the 55th Asean ministerial meeting” as “highly reprehensible” and damaging to regional efforts to establish peace in Myanmar.
Such a rebuke from Asean is rare. Although Myanmar’s military junta was at first prohibited from attending high-level Asean meetings, more recently this stance appears to have shifted. Indeed, the presence of junta representatives at the Asean Defence Ministers’ meeting in June has called into question Asean’s commitment to upholding the democratic rights of Myanmar’s population.
Asean has been criticised before for sidelining human rights in the pursuit of economic integration. In 2017, the 50th anniversary of the bloc’s founding, Teddy Baguilat, a board member of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), called on the group to strengthen its rights framework: “We must push back against moves of autocrats and populist leaders to demonise human rights advocates and trivialise human rights issues”.
Among Asean member states, bilateral approaches to Myanmar have varied. Thailand, for example, has been more upfront in recognising the junta’s power; the outgoing Thai ambassador to Myanmar met Senior General Min Aung Hlaing in March.
As for achieving the Five-Point Consensus, a set of aims agreed upon last April by Asean members and Myanmar’s new junta leader to pull the country out of its post-coup crisis, Asean has little to show for itself. The bloc has not yet had a formal meeting with any members of the shadow National Unity Government (NUG), which represents the democratic aspirations of the people of Myanmar. It has also come under scrutiny for being too tolerant of the junta, which has made minimal tangible progress itself in realising the five aims.
The junta refused to entertain Malaysia’s suggestion that Asean could engage with the NUG, calling the proposal “irresponsible and reckless”. Furthermore, the military leaders of Myanmar have made it clear that attempts at diplomatic isolation and international sanctions have little impact on them.
Meanwhile, thousands of Rohingya Muslims, members of an ethnic group from Myanmar’s northwestern Rakhine state, have been seeking refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh ever since a brutal military crackdown in 2017 sparked a mass exodus. Objections by Myanmar to a case accusing it of having committed genocide against the Rohingya were dismissed by the International Court of Justice on July 22.
Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister Abdul Momen has expressed concern over the delayed repatriation of the Rohingya. “The only possible solution in this regard is the repatriation of the displaced people to their homeland, the Rakhine state of Myanmar,” he said earlier this month in a plea to Asean for help in beginning the process.
Amid this crisis, analysts have condemned Asean’s principle of non-interference and adherence to nonviolent tactics to settle conflicts. Rohingya asylum seekers have been facing government pushback and forced return, violating international rules that no one should return to a place where their life or freedom is at risk.
Certainly, Asean could have played a more meaningful role in resolving the Myanmar crisis. In the words of APHR chairman Charles Santiago in 2017, “Asean needs to adapt or risk becoming irrelevant in a rapidly evolving global environment. The non-interference principle is a barrier to the realisation of human rights, as well as to Asean’s ability to act decisively to address a host of other issues. It must change if the bloc is to have any hope of becoming a pivotal actor in the international arena.”
Many agree with an APHR report’s assessment that Asean’s institutional framework has allowed member states like Myanmar the freedom to “set the parameters of Asean’s engagement”. More than five decades after its founding, Asean needs to decide whether it is merely a well-functioning trade body or a respectable regional organisation with common binding values.
The situation in Myanmar highlights the shortcomings of building an association based on economic interests alone. Such an association may well fail to serve the needs of the people for whose well-being it was first created.
In a statement on the situation in Myanmar in February, Asean chair Cambodia said that “durable peace and national reconciliation can be achieved only through an inclusive political solution that is Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led and involving all parties concerned”.
Perhaps then Asean diplomats may wish to speak to the ordinary citizens of Myanmar about democracy, human rights and civil liberty, rather than its leaders who could not care less about these values.
