Imagine a country that has elections, but then nullifies the election, placing the popular winner of these under house arrest for 11 of the subsequent 17 years. Imagine a country that is ruled by a military junta that eschews the most basic of human rights and seems able to deflect and be unaffected by any attention of its record. In truth there are several countries in the world where free and fair elections are not held at all; several others where when held, the elections are less than free and fair, and still others where democratically elected rulers are denied the chance for one reason or another to rule (arguably President Bush's 'defeat' of Al Gore for his first term as President of the USA may fit in this category).
Yet most countries in this situation merit a certain degree of international attention and critique. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was constantly in the news; Mugabe's Zimbabwe though featuring less prominently nonetheless does make news; even Kim Jong Il, leader of what is probably the world's most secretive State merits the odd headline. But somehow Burma or Myanmar as it has been renamed by the SLORC military junta who have held it in its firm grasp, appears not to be newsworthy.
It was not always so: in 1991 the democratically elected leader of the country Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Many believed that this level of attention was bound to provide a shot in the arm for democracy to return to the troubled state. Yet the world's attention is momentary, and that moment in the limelight proved unable to turn the tide of events.
In the aftermath of crises such as the genocides and ethnic cleansings (in Rwanda, Yugoslavia or Darfur, Sudan) or gross violations of human rights (such as in Iraq, in Afghanistan or in Zimbabwe) it is customary for international society to ask itself how the events that transpired came to be. This is particularly relevant in view of the promise of the United Nations Charter of 1945, signed by 51 states in the aftermath of the devastation of World War Two. The document begins "We the people of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind ..." Yet the international society often appears hamstrung in the face of crisis, rendering this 'determination' meaningless.
Burma provides a stark example of how the warnings given by those with a ear to the ground go unheeded. The persistent violations of human rights in the country led the erstwhile United Nations Commission of Human Rights to create a special office to monitor the situation of that country since 1992. The current holder of the mandate Paulo Sergio Pinheiro continues to draw attention to the issues, but with the national interests of none of the Big Five Security Council members immediately affected, these reports form background noise that is easy to ignore.
This week Pinheiro, in conjunction with 13 other human rights mandate holders from within the United Nations human rights system have issued a press release stating:
On 27 May, the current term of detention of the General-Secretary of the National League for Democracy comes to an end. Since her party and its allies won the 1990 election with over eighty percent of the Parliamentary seats, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been detained for 11 of the last 17 years without charge or trial. She has been held in isolation for the past four years.
As of one of the world's most acclaimed human rights defenders, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is a major political and spiritual leader of Burma. Her tireless commitment to non-violence, truth and human rights has made her a worthy symbol through whom the plight of all people in Burma may be recognized.
We call on the Government of Burma to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi unconditionally and to free all the remaining political prisoners. We believe this would give a significant sign of the Government's will to initiate a genuine and effective transition towards democracy.
The UN human rights experts believe that the stability of Burma is not well served by the arrest and detention of several political leaders or by the severe and sustained restrictions on the exercise of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.
As is inevitable, in situations such as that in Myanmar/Burma, minorities and ethnic groups often suffer the gravest threats to their existence. This was been highlighted in several of annual reports submitted by Pinheiro and his predecessors to the United Nations. The Karen have been particularly vulnerable to military excesses with Amnesty International having also documented the arbitrary detention, extra-judicial killings and torture and ill-treatment of other ethnic minorities in the states of Shan, Mon and the Tenasserim part of eastern Burma.
Last month in another joint statement by officials from the UN's human rights machinery (including Pinheiro, McDougall – the Independent Expert on minority issues, and respectively, the Special Rapporteurs on Racism, on Adequate Housing, on Food and on Health) attention was drawn to the members of the Muslim minority in the north Rakhine State. If Myanmar could be classified as 'the Forgotten' then the Muslims are the hidden element within the Forgotten State. Since the passage of the 1982 Citizenship Law the Muslims (Rohingyas) have been refused citizenship, and as a result denied the meagre human rights that flow from this. The Rapporteurs point to 'severe restrictions on their freedom of movement; various forms of extortion and arbitrary taxation; land confiscation and forced evictions; restricted access to medical care, food and adequate housing; forced labour; and restrictions on marriages'. The result has been the exodus of this group to neighbouring countries creating a still unveiling humanitarian crisis.
The situation appears unlikely to improve as long as the junta stays in power. In keeping with the popularity of the term elsewhere Pinheiro had proposed a "seven-point road map for national reconciliation and democratic transition" which while initially meeting some approval appears, like more famous road-maps elsewhere, to have been put aside in a renewed period of suppression.
The renewed military operations in areas populated by ethnic minorities are a growing concern, in conjunction with increasing episodes of land confiscation which are rendering many ethnic minorities destitute in a country where the gap between rich and poor has grown dramatically. The deployment of the military to ethnic minority populated areas has doubled since 1995 across Kayin, Mon, Shan, Kaya and North Rakhine. As many as 3,077 separate reports of destruction, relocation or abandonment have been documented between 1996 and 2006 in these areas. The result is a million displaced people who have very little access to basic services. This is inevitably fuelling a battle for scarce resources with the spiral of violence outside the military controlled areas leading independent observers to label this the worst humanitarian crisis since the 1996-1997 military campaign.
With 75 per cent of the population engaged in agriculture the land confiscations attendant to the militarization of the ethnic minority populated areas is devastating. Burma's ethnic minorities, being a more rurally based population have a special relationship to their land, in much the way that many indigenous peoples elsewhere in the globe. Thus the confiscation of land inevitably has the effect of destroying local communities. As in may other conflicts the restoration of these rights would like at the heart of the struggle for justice and democracy.
What we may well have in an unfolding human tragedy on an even grander scale that has been transpiring. Yet we are not yet even at the Darfur stage: i.e. – lost in recriminations of who should do what as the crisis unfolds. Burma remains far from the agenda despite the best efforts of those who would tell us otherwise. 'Determined to save succeeding generations from the scrouge of war… or determined to save particular generations from the scourge of particular wars that affect our narrow national interests?
Joshua Castellino is Professor of Law at the Law School and Transitional Justice Institute, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Adjunct Professor of Law at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway. He is an Academic Director on the European Masters in Human Rights and Democratisation, Italy and has held visiting positions in Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, and the Universidad Carlos III in Madrid, Spain.
His researches interests lie in international law, human and minority rights. He has authored International Law & Self Determination (2000), Title to Territory in International Law (with Steve Allen) (2002), Minority Rights in Asia (with Elvira Dominguez Redondo)(2006) and has edited a collection of essays entitled International Law & Indigenous Peoples (2005). He participated actively in inter-governmental exchanges such as the EU-China Experts Network and the EU sponsored Lawyers for the New Millennium hosted by the Arab Lawyers Union in conjunction with the Law Society of England & Wales. He has also contributed to the work of NGOs such as Human Rights Law Network, India, Human Rights in China, Minority Rights Group International, Amnesty International and Trocaire.
Joshua is the founder and director of the Annual Summer School on Minority Rights & Indigenous Peoples hosted in Galway, Ireland every June.