It is a country where children are imprisoned, tortured and sexually abused. Hundreds have been killed since the military coup two years ago. In total, more than 2,600 people have been murdered and about 17,000 have been detained by a brutal regime led by a genocidal war criminal.
This is not Ukraine, and it is not Russian President Vladimir Putin. The criminal in question is Burmese Army Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.
He struts about in a uniform adorned with meaningless decorations and gaudy gold braid. As a general rule, the more medals a dictator wears, the more absurd and dangerous they are. This killer, this bigoted bomber of villages, schools and hospitals, this displacer of millions, is up there with the worst of them.
Min Aung Hlaing last week “celebrated” Myanmar’s 75th independence anniversary from the UK with a big military parade silently boycotted by most Burmese.
Days earlier, he slapped yet another prison term on ousted Burmese state councilor Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratically elected leader he deposed.
True to the tyrant’s playbook, the junta has planned sham elections this year that would exclude its opponents.
Addressing a sullen nation, Min Aung Hlaing thanked countries which have declined to join the EU, US and UK in imposing sanctions. It was a roll call of shame.
“We are closely working with China, India, Thailand, Laos and Bangladesh ... for border stability and development,” he said.
He might have mentioned Russia, his main arms supplier.
What the general failed to say is the junta’s grip on power is weakening in the teeth of growing political and armed resistance from an umbrella group, the People’s Defence Force, a so-called ethnic armed organization, and the exiled, civilian-led National Unity Government of Myanmar.
Despite regime efforts to suppress independent reporting, much of Myanmar appears to be in a state of semi-permanent insurrection, punctuated by junta atrocities.
However, to succeed, disparate resistance groups need to forge a united front, former US ambassador to Myanmar Scot Marciel said.
“The junta may be able to stay in power for some time just through pure brutality, but there’s no evidence at all that [it] will be able to stabilize or effectively govern the country or gain any kind of popular support,” Marciel told The Irrawaddy news Web site last week.
“They [the resistance] have to show ... they present a stable alternative,” he said.
It is plain Myanmar’s people need help. So what more should the international community be doing?
As the former colonial power, the UK is lead country on Myanmar at the UN. Notwithstanding British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs James Cleverly’s recent boasts in the Guardian, its good-faith efforts have proven largely ineffectual over the years.
As is so often the case, hopes are pinned on the US. The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act authorizes US President Joe Biden’s administration to provide non-lethal assistance and funding to opposition organizations, political prisoners and civil society groups.
However, it is unclear what the White House might do next.
If the world really wants to end Myanmar’s suffering, and bring Min Aung Hlaing to heel, China — in theory — is best placed to try.
Huge business and infrastructure investments afford it unmatched leverage. It does not care about democracy, but chronic instability on its border is not in Beijing’s interest .
Self-serving calculations, not principles, explain China’s unexpected decision not to veto last month’s first-ever UN Security Council resolution on Myanmar, which called for an end to violence and the freeing of all political prisoners. Following Beijing’s lead, Russia also abstained.
Now comes the hard part: ensuring the junta complies.
The UN, like Myanmar’s opposition, needs a united front. To work, it must also include India’s government which, as with Ukraine, puts money before morality; Bangladesh, which is struggling to cope with one million Burmese Rohingya Muslim refugees; Thailand and other ASEAN members.
However, ASEAN is split. Its “five-point consensus” peace plan has stalled.
Some states fantasize that the junta’s sham elections would provide genuine legitimacy. Even recent tragedies involving Rohingya boat people have left regional leaders largely unmoved.
The Burma Campaign UK complains the UN resolution does not go far enough, with no mention of a long-sought global arms embargo.
“Russia, China and India are using their seats on the Security Council to protect their profitable dodgy arms deals with the Burmese military,” the group’s UK director Mark Farmaner said.
Trying to maintain momentum, activists want the UK and other governments to block supplies of aviation fuel, to stop the junta launching airstrikes.
Too many international companies still do business in Myanmar, they said.
Legal action alleging a Rohingya genocide is under way at the UN’s International Court of Justice — but the process would take years.
Who else can deter the junta? Religious leaders might be expected to help.
However, the regime assiduously courts majority Buddhist opinion. Last week it honored ultra-nationalist Buddhist monk Wirathu, who is notorious for anti-Islam rhetoric and was once dubbed the “face of Buddhist terror.”
Catholic leaders feted Min Aung Hlaing at a Christmas service at Holy Trinity Cathedral in Yangon.
Cardinal Charles Maung Bo prayed for peace, apparently forgiving of the fact his parishioner’s stormtroopers frequently burn churches — and attacked his home village last year.
All concerned actors, international and domestic, must join to dethrone the region’s worst regime since the Khmer Rouge terrorized Cambodia.
“What is required is action,” UN special rapporteur on Myanmar Tom Andrews said last month.
“Systematic, gross human rights violations, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity [are] being perpetrated daily on the people of Myanmar,” he said.
What could be clearer? If the 21st century’s defining global struggle for democracy, justice and civil liberty is to have any hope of succeeding, it must be fought here.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing