Spotlight on human rights abuses

Spotlight on human rights abuses

This month, the Myanmar government will submit their report to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) — a United Nations mechanism which assesses the progress of individual countries on their adherence to human rights standards. 

Given that persistent and egregious violations of human rights have continued across Myanmar in recent years, this is a boon for both the government, and its key benefactors.

But the UPR process will most likely draw attention to the Myanmar government's absolute failure to move away from the repressive authoritarianism for which it has become known.

If you want to get an idea of the importance a state places on the human rights of its citizens, the output of their UPR process is a good place to start. Input is sought from a spectrum of interested parties, upon which international governments make recommendations to the government under scrutiny. The UPR's four-yearly cycle serves as a regular marker of a country's progress — or lack thereof — in meeting internationally accepted human rights standards. By all accounts, the results for Myanmar's 2015 UPR will make for dismal reading.

In the last year, a massive escalation in human rights violations has prompted concern that Myanmar's reform process is backsliding. The conflict in both the Kachin and Kokang regions, the violent quashing of peaceful protest movements focused on land confiscation and education reform, increasing hostility towards the media and the continued persecution of the country's Rohingya population indicate the scale of abuses under discussion. Conservative estimates now put the number of internally displaced persons in Myanmar at 300,000. It seems clear, then, that Myanmar's leaders retain the same disdain for international human rights as at any time before embarking on their "transition".

Despite its commitments made during the UPR process in 2011, the government has failed to ratify and implement core human rights treaties — including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — and reneged on its promise to open an office for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The government also refused to condemn nationalist monk Wirathu for branding the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar Yanghee Lee a "whore" earlier this year, following her criticism of the proposed race and religion bills — widely regarded as discriminatory to both women and non-Buddhists.

Alongside these persistent failures, it is worth remembering that the man leading Myanmar's UPR process is Home Affairs Minister Major General Ko Ko — a senior army general whose record on human rights abuses is, by any measure, highly questionable. Maj Gen Ko Ko stands accused of directing the violent dispersal of student protests earlier this year, authorising the use of white phosphorous incendiary weapons on peaceful protestors at the Letapadaung copper mine, and presiding over war crimes during a three-year military offensive in Karen State. It is unlikely that the government's presentation to the UPR will be particularly self-critical. 

Repercussions for President Thein Sein's administration for the abuses outlined above — and the countless others not mentioned — have been minimal. The spoils of the country's liberalisation have proven too enticing for the international community, always fearful of being ostracised by a recalcitrant military-dominated government. Consequently, the country's ongoing civil war, mass land grabbing, and impunity for rape and murder by soldiers have been painted as necessary evils in the country's process of transition.

Myanmar's upcoming UPR process is potentially damaging for everyone invested in this narrative — not least because it can expose the chasm between the sanguine rhetoric of a changing Myanmar and the reality on the ground. For organisations documenting human rights violations, there is concern that states seen as sympathetic to Myanmar's reforms — including the UK, the US, and Japan — will be unlikely to push the government very far on these continued abuses.

The nature of the support provided to the Myanmar government is reflected both in the country's economic growth and burgeoning levels of foreign investment, and the collective failure to address their reneging of obligations under international law. If the international community is earnest in its rhetoric, more must be done to push the Myanmar government to prioritise human rights.

The whole idea of the UPR — and international human rights law more broadly — is founded on the international community's readiness to take action against those unwilling to uphold recognised standards of human rights. The edifice relies on international political and economic pressure. If an emerging economy knows non-compliance with international human rights standards will negatively affect foreign aid, investment, and tourism, it is more likely the state in question will strive to realise them.

This month's UPR is an opportunity for the international community to make it clear that their support is conditional upon the Myanmar government safeguarding the basic human rights of their citizens. They must not waste it.


David Baulk is a gender consultant and freelance journalist, working with civil society organisations that focus on the human rights of women in Burma. He is based in Chiang Mai.

David Baulk

Gender consultant and freelance journalist

A gender consultant and freelance journalist, working with civil society organisations that focus on the human rights of women in Burma. He is based in Chiang Mai.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT