The news blackout imposed by Myanmar's military junta on its decision to forego its turn as chair of ASEAN next year shows that it has received a severe blow to its prestige. Indeed, the decision was far from voluntary. Junta leader Senior General Than Shwe "lost face" and promptly disappeared from public view so completely that some Burmese thought he had died.
The protagonists that pressured the regime into relinquishing the ASEAN chair were not the usual Western human-rights campaigners, but Myanmar's closest ASEAN neighbors. This must have made the retreat doubly painful for the generals, as ASEAN used to be one of the junta's best shields against foreign pressure.
For ASEAN, the episode was a lesson in assertiveness. It showed that persistent pressure works better than the "constructive engagement" that it had pursued, to no avail, for the eight years since Myanmar joined the organization.
This shift has been led by an embryonic grouping of elected regional parliamentarians known as the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Caucus on Democracy in Myanmar (AIPMC), of which I am a member. Established last November to spur progress on democratization in Myanmar, parliamentarians from Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Cambodia took the unprecedented step of crossing national and party lines to critically review ASEAN policy on Myanmar, seek the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and disqualify Myanmar from chairing.
Now, we will move for the suspension of Myanmar's membership of ASEAN unless Suu Kyi and other political prisoners are released and clear progress towards democracy is made through negotiations involving Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy and representatives of the various ethnic groups.
As elected legislators in ASEAN's established and budding democracies, the members of AIPMC feel that our voices have merit and legitimacy. We know that Myanmar's political destiny is inextricably linked to that of our own countries.
When Myanmar joined ASEAN in 1997, there were only 210,000 Burmese refugees and asylum seekers throughout the region. Now, nearly 1 million people have fled Myanmar's political and economic chaos for neighboring countries, and another million people remain internally displaced. Our youth are at an all-time high risk of drug addiction from the massive flow of narcotics, particularly amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS), from Myanmar, while the generals there maintain congenial ties with notorious drug lords.
In the middle of last month, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime admitted that Myanmar and China were the world's top producers of ATS. Amphetamine drugs produced in eastern Myanmar seem to be transported with such ease that significant quantities have been found in northeast India, on Myanmar's western border. That, together with the heroin that is trafficked from Myanmar to India, China, Thailand and other countries in the region, poses a serious threat to our political and economic security.
It is both tragic and inevitable that the areas of India and China bordering Myanmar now suffer from those countries' highest concentration of drug addiction and HIV infection. My own country, Thailand, receives up to 900 million amphetamine pills from Myanmar every year, and about a third of our regular drug users are below the age of 16. If this is the impact on Thailand, what about the young people and children of Myanmar, who have been restricted from access to education, information and health care?
It is scandalous that drug lords enjoy more freedom to operate than aid agencies, while basic access to food, education and healthcare suffers restrictions, with up to 70 percent of Myanmar's children chronically malnourished in some border areas.
Indeed, in August, World Food Program (WFP) executive director James Morris revealed that the WFP had delivered only 390 tonnes of the 4,990 tonnes of rice earmarked for vulnerable people in Myanmar's northern Arakan State because of restrictions imposed by the regime. Two weeks later, the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria pulled its funding for programs in Myanmar, citing government restrictions that had created "an impossibly difficult environment."
Preventing aid from reaching those in need is bad enough. But Myanmar's regime actually perpetuates conditions that sustain and worsen the HIV/AIDS epidemic by restricting access to counseling, medication and other support services. In order for HIV/AIDS programs to be effective and sustainable, affected communities must have the freedom to organize and empower themselves. Only then can they be assured access to the resources essential for treatment options.
Suu Kyi's eloquent plea, "Please use your liberty to promote ours," has special resonance for us in AIPMC, who enjoy the benefits of representative democracy. This is why we feel obligated to call on the highest levels of the international community -- including the UN Security Council -- to address the question of Myanmar, for we must show that we are serious about peace, democracy and human rights.
The courageous people of Myanmar, like people everywhere around the world, deserve what far too many of us take for granted.
Jon Ungphakorn is an elected member of the Thai Senate and committee member of the Asean Inter-Parliamentary Caucus on Democracy in Myanmar.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers