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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US