"This is an urgent moral challenge for the international community."
"This is an urgent moral challenge for the international community."
Amid the increasingly violent repression by the military junta of the growing civil disobedience movement in Myanmar, Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. did the right thing in calling for the immediate release of the detained government leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the complete return to the previously existing state of affairs in that country.
The military junta launched a coup on February 1, claiming widespread fraud in the November election that saw Suu Kyi and her political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), win by an overwhelming majority. But the military junta offered no evidence of such fraud, and vowed instead to hold new elections within a year.
Meantime, the people of Myanmar are voting with their feet, and marching on the streets of Yangon and other cities demanding an immediate end to military rule and freedom for Suu Kyi and other elected civilian leaders.
Soon after the military junta grabbed state power, Locsin issued a statement reiterating the policy of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) of non-interference in the internal affairs of the member-states, but with a qualification: that what he said “is not a blanket approval or tacit consent for wrong to be done there.”
His subsequent statement calling for Suu Kyi’s release differs from the conspicuous silence and apparent wait-and-see attitude of other ASEAN member-countries, with the exception of Indonesia and Malaysia, who have offered to hold a dialogue with the military junta to find a way out of the crisis.
The ASEAN stand on non-interference in the internal affairs of other member-countries is part and parcel of the five principles of peaceful coexistence agreed upon in the historic Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia in April 1955. These principles also include mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful co-existence.
For Locsin, ASEAN members should stand ready to extend help to the people and government of Myanmar. “The rest of ASEAN must stand by Myanmar,” he said. “This should not stop now.”
“Indeed, more than ever we should help all the more. Our appeal is not from the outside but from inside what we claim is one family: a family first of peoples and not of governments; feeling the hurt in one of its members,” Locsin pointed out.
“As part of ASEAN, indeed as part of the civilized community of nations, we are deeply concerned about the recent developments in Myanmar. We are cognizant of the Army’s role in preserving Myanmar’s territorial integrity and national security…But even so we equally recognize the unifying role of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in her country’s history and in its destiny.”
It is true that ASEAN leaders have adhered to the principle of non-interference in the affairs of states even as human rights issues have cropped up in certain member-states. But the regional bloc, while openly in favor of non-interference, also works through what has been called the “ASEAN Way,” which is to try to reach consensus on contentious issues, away from the limelight.
But what about the larger community of nations?
The charter of the United Nations contains this provision:
“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures…”
But the UN also makes an exception to the steadfast rule on non-interference in the internal affairs of states when it comes to the protection of civilians in war situations.
Such was the case, for instance, in Syria, where the Security Council discussed in 2011 a draft resolution demanding that Syrian authorities immediately cease violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians. The draft resolution was not adopted, owing to the negative vote of two permanent members of the Council.
The representatives of the Russian Federation and China opposed the resolution as they said it violates the principle of respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and the principle of non-intervention, including military, in Syrian affairs.
If I recall correctly, both the UN General Assembly and the Security Council have already approved resolutions calling for restraint on the part of Myanmar military junta and the protection of unarmed civilians who have launched daily protests since February 1 against the military coup.
We believe the international community should intervene in the Myanmar political crisis since the military junta has shown no sign that it is willing to bend over backwards and accede to the key demands of the people of Myanmar.
As things now stand, the military junta is already committing crimes against humanity by killing unarmed protesters ventilating their main demand for a return to democratic rule, or a semblance of it. This is an urgent moral challenge for the international community. When grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed, the international community cannot simply shrug its shoulders and walk away. It should take decisive action to end such violations.
