Initial optimism is quickly
fading as the quasi-civilian Burmese government lead by President U Thein Sein
back pedals on its early promises.
When Julie Bishop arrives in Burma this week for her first
visit as Australia’s foreign minister, she may be hoping to find a model for
peaceful democratic transition from decades of military rule. Instead, she’ll
find a shaky, uneven reform process led by a quasi-civilian government that’s
already showing deep stress fractures.
The top-down reform process led by the former army general
turned President, U Thein Sein, was initially welcomed for its surprising
vigour: the release of political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi, a major
overhaul of the legal system, a rigorous parliamentary structure (albeit one
held hostage by a military quota) and the signing of more than 15 ceasefire
agreements with ethnic rebels after six decades of civil war. The announcements
were swiftly followed by an increase in international aid and investment, the
lifting of sanctions, and high-profile visits by almost every key world leader.
Yet initial optimism is quickly fading as the Burmese
government back pedals on its early promises. Burma’s media is being
intimidated, the country’s military is muscling in on delicate peace
negotiations, widespread land grabs are fueling rural discontent, legal curbs
have been placed on peaceful assembly and association, and there is continued
fighting in the north between the Burmese army and ethnic rebels, despite a
ceasefire.
The government and military are being increasingly obtuse
on amending clauses in the constitution that prohibit Suu Kyi’s eligibility to
be president and, crucially, have ignored demands from certain ethnic groups
for greater autonomy. Everything points to a showdown between the government
and Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, a
confrontation that can severely destabilise Burma ahead of next
year's national elections.
More disturbingly, both Buddhist ultra-nationalism and
anti-Islamic hate speech are on the rise, emboldened by prominent monks who
urge the government to restrict inter-faith marriage, religious conversions,
family planning and polygamy, all of which will adversely affect Burma’s
sizeable Muslim minority.
In western Burma, the persecution of the Rohingya Muslim
minority has intensified following communal clashes in 2012 that killed
hundreds and forced 180,000 people from their homes. They now live in wretched
conditions, crammed into camps where the Burmese authorities are able to
regulate foreign aid sent to them. A flawed nationwide census in March, which
Australia helped to fund, cynically excluded the Rohingya.
Bishop is flying into a tougher bilateral relationship than
one would have forecast a year ago.
Australia’s relations with Burma have generally balanced
practical engagement for democratic change with consistent criticism of the
appalling human rights abuses committed during military rule. Australia has
been a generous aid donor, providing assistance to refugees on the Thai-Burma
border, resettling thousands of long-term refugees in Australia, and
helping fund the country’s health and education sectors, so degraded after
decades of inept military governance.
But as a generous donor and investor, Bishop should tell
Thein Sein his bid to reform Burma will be derailed unless he addresses several
key rights issues.
Her first message needs to be that ongoing mistreatment of
the stateless Rohingya is unacceptable. Of course, Australia’s own appalling
record on asylum seekers will render these concerns hypocritical, so
Bishop should remind Burma that its repression of the Rohingya is fuelling a
growing exodus that’s affecting the whole region: 86,000 Rohingya have fled to
Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia since 2012.
The Australian government has been far too timid on the
Rohingya issue to date: when Immigration Minister Scott Morrison went to the
country in February he visited camps, but failed to make any public statements
calling on Burma to address the abuses from which the Rohingya are
fleeing.
Bishop has said women’s empowerment will be a key priority
of her visit. As such, she should raise concerns over proposed religious laws,
especially a draft marriage bill that will restrict interfaith marriage.
Under the proposed law, non-Buddhists who fail to convert to Buddhism before
marrying a Buddhist, or don’t seek written consent from the parents of the
bride, face a 10-year prison term. Bishop should make it clear that such laws
are not only discriminatory, but will further inflame inter-communal hatred.
Australia’s aid package also includes assistance to Burma’s
lucrative yet opaque and corrupt mining sector, which has bred a litany of
concerns over land grabs and environmental damage. As a recent report from
Global Witness has highlighted, there is too little transparency in Burma’s
extractive industry and Australia’s assistance should be designed to compel
this sector to become genuinely rights respecting and open, and ultimately
benefit more than just a handful of foreign investors and those with military
connections.
Bishop should make it clear that, while Canberra will
continue to support genuine reform, if Burma allows hatred, violence and
exclusion to flourish unchecked, the very reform process Australia is investing
in will be derailed.
David Scott Mathieson
is a senior researcher in the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment