Let’s get real

1. The role of ASEANUnequivocally, ASEAN has a crucial role to play in the question of Myanmar’s violent crackdown on the pro-democracy protests, seeing that it is, after all, the regional bloc organisation.

However, ASEAN’s response to the question of Myanmar has been criticised by many as being too lenient on Myanmar for its blatant violations of human rights, and lacking in firmness to move Myanmar towards a greater degree of democractisation. Many have even called for an exception to the non-intervention policy practised by ASEAN between its various member nations that is enshrined in the ASEAN Charter. In other words, many do want to see foreign intervention by member nations of ASEAN in Myanmar to stop the violent crackdown on pro-democracy protests.

As much as it is horrific that the Myanmar military junta has never hesitated in making full use of the brute force at its disposal to re-enact a ‘Tiananmen incident’-esque crackdown on pro-democracy protests, it cannot be stressed enough that no form of foreign intervention should ever take place.

But why, you may ask. Why shouldn’t we step in and stop the Myanmar military junta from continuing its mindless crackdown on pro-democracy protests, especially when we have the means to do so?

Simply because we cannot afford to encroach upon Myanmar’s national sovereignty. Following the Westphalian conception of sovereign nation state, historical incidents where national sovereignty has been trodden upon and grossly insulted has usually resulted in tragedy. Just barely 70 years ago, Britain and France went so far as to offer Czechoslovakia to Hitler’s Nazi Germany in the Munich Agreement so as to appease Hitler and his war-hungry subordinates of the Nazi regime, without consulting or respecting the national sovereignty of Czechoslovakia at all. Obviously, it didn’t work out in the end, because World War II broke out anyways, and it merely whetted Hilter’s appetite for the domination of Europe by Germany through military conquest.

While I am not saying that ASEAN’s direct intervention in Myanmar will necessarily turn out for the worst, I am saying that the mutual respect for national sovereignty between nations is the most fundamental rule in international politics. After all, if one party chooses not to respect the national sovereignty of another party, why would the one party even bother treating the other party as a legitimate nation state?

To illustrate that in much clearer terms, let’s take all people as microcosms of the various nations that exist in the world of today. The national sovereignty that is possessed by the various nations is equivalent to a person’s human rights entitled to the person under the Constitution. And to infringe upon the national sovereignty of a country, is the same as infringing upon the human rights of the person. Of course, it would take a bad government to infringe upon the human rights; similarly, it is a symptom of poor diplomacy and politicking to have to resort to infringing upon another country’s national sovereignty.

And this is why I feel that ASEAN should not directly intervene in Myanmar. It’s bad for Myanmar, it’s bad for ASEAN.

The role of ASEAN, in this case, should be to ensure that the Myanmar military junta remains open to dialogue with the UN and with the ASEAN. The Myanmar military junta is particularly notorious for its desire to isolate Myanmar from the rest of the international community; a wrong move by any party wishing to establish dialogue with the Myanmar military junta could just provide the military junta with a seemingly legitimate reason to refuse dialogue with any parties at all and persist with its blatant violations of human rights.

2. The role of the West

Ah yes. The West. The bastions of human rights, democracy, and everything good that humanity ever once stood for. Or so it seems.

Doesn’t it strike anyone as interesting that while the West is so openly harsh on Myanmar for its gross human rights violations record, the West doesn’t seem to mind itself practising the policy of extraordinary rendition, where terrorist suspects are abducted and sent to regimes specialising in torture to extract confessions of these suspects? Doesn’t it strike anyone as interesting that while the West is so against Myanmar for blatantly ignoring human rights, the West doesn’t seem to mind China jailing political dissenters on a regular basis; neither does it mind Russia’s long list of atrocities in Chechnya?

Interesting, isn’t it?

Many have been quick to criticise ASEAN, which happens to be chaired by Singapore, for being too soft on Myanmar. Many have also alleged that Singapore doesn’t wish to intervene in Myanmar because of close business and trading ties between the latter and the former. Perhaps, it’s true; maybe Singapore has made the choice of putting our own economic prosperity before the well-being of Myanmar citizens, maybe Singapore has chosen that preserving the economic well-being of Singaporeans is more moral than protecting the human rights of the Myanmar people.

But before you launch into an entire barrage of Singapore’s disgusting lack of concern and show of nonchalance towards the question of Myanmar, perhaps consider if the West is really supporting human rights for the sake of doing so?

In the case of China, it would be sheer folly that any member of the Western club would wish to endanger ties with China. After all, as long as China continues to trade with the West, the West would be more than willing to close one eye to China’s violations of human rights. Perhaps that’s why no Western nations has chosen to pursue the use of economic sanctions on China for its record of human rights violations.

In the case of Russia, it would be sheer suicide that any Western nation would wish to threaten Russia for its poor human rights record. First off, Russia has a permanent seat in the UNSC, not all of the Western nations do; even more so, Russia’s economic importance cannot be denied with Russia staking a 9th in highest GDP; and finally Russia’s got nukes, baby.

So why Myanmar? Why does the West wish to go so harsh on Myanmar? Firstly, Myanmar’s geographically far from the West, so any form of instability caused by the West to Myanmar would not generate hoards of refugees running across the borders of Western nations, and just to get it straights: the West is very afraid of a mass exodus of refugees, an that’s probably why France has yet to intervene in Algeria and Monaco, even though the former practises state-sponsored torture and the latter practises a suppression of political rights. Secondly, the recent incident involving the West and the participation of several Western nations in extraordinary rendition has tarnished the human rights image of the West, so when Myanmar came along, it offered to the West a relatively risk-free avenue for re-establishing itself as a protector of human rights. Thirdly, Myanmar has an abundance of natural resources, just that it’s poorly managed by the military junta so most of it ends up in the military rulers’ pockets, leaving the people stricken with poverty; and so if this is indeed the beginning of the end, the moment at which the Myanmar people will rise up and overthrow the tyrannical military junta, the West would probably feel that it doesn’t hurt if they are to win the sympathy of the Myanmar people so that they can benefit from trading ties with Myanmar if Myanmar is ever democratised.

3. Conclusion

Let me just stress that, I am not for the military junta in Myanmar persisting with its course of blatant human rights violations. However, I am for the resolution of this situation in Myanmar through a minimalistic approach with an emphasis on a lack of direct intervention. No one knows how direct intervention in Myanmar might turn - if it does turn out good, good for everyone; but if it turns out bad, who should take responsibility?