Scroll.in
Angshuman ChoudhuryYesterday
The resolution calls on the country’s military to end the state of emergency and to reopen the ‘democratically elected parliament’, among other things.
A demonstration against the military coup in Dooplaya district in Myanmar's Karen state. | Handout / KNU Dooplaya District / AFP
On June 18, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution on the “situation in Myanmar” with a vote of 119-1. Although not legally binding on member states, the document carries significant political heft.
Among other things, the resolution calls on the Myanmar military to end the state of emergency, reopen the “democratically elected parliament”, release detained civilian leaders “immediately and unconditionally”, “swiftly implement” the five-point consensus reached at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations meeting in April, cooperate with the ASEAN Chair’s Special Envoy, end “all violence” against peaceful protestors, and allow the UN Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Myanmar to visit the country.
It also calls on all member states to “prevent the flow of arms into Myanmar” while recalling last year’s UN Security Council resolution demanding a global ceasefire in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In total, 36 countries – including India – abstained from voting. Belarus, which requested the vote, was the only country to vote against the resolution. The full voting record was published by Canada’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Bob Rae, on his Twitter account.
A good message delivered by the General Assembly today: https://t.co/W4hnBBmZKW pic.twitter.com/QCQyrPaca0
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48)
What did India say?
In its explanatory remarks, delivered by the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador TS Tirumurti, India said that it has “direct stakes in the maintenance of peace and stability in Myanmar.”
In fact, despite its abstention, it made several arguments that overlap with the contents of the resolution – such as welcoming the ASEAN’s five-point consensus, reaffirming the UN Security Council’s call for an “early visit of the ASEAN Special Envoy”, condemning the “use of violence” and expressing “steadfast” support for the process of democratic transition (“there can be no turning back on this”). It also recognised that the instability in Myanmar could spill over beyond its borders, and called for “greater engagement” to “peacefully resolve all issues”.
Watch 📺:
Explanation of India's vote by @AmbTSTirumurti at the adoption of #UNGA resolution on Myanmar 🇲🇲@MeaIndia pic.twitter.com/iwr3yV1A2r
— India at UN, NY (@IndiaUNNewYork)
These are largely the same points that India had made earlier in April, following a closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council.
On the Rohingya refugee crisis, India said that as the only country to share a border with both Bangladesh and Myanmar, it has the “highest stakes in resolving this issue at the earliest”. In line with its policy so far, Tirumurti used the phrase “displaced persons from Rakhine State” instead of “Rohingya” – which is also how the former Aung San Suu Kyi-led civilian government and the Myanmar military referred to the community.
While the military continues to avoid the term “Rohingya” in its public statements, deposed civilian lawmakers who recently formed a parallel civilian government called National Unity Government of Myanmar have started using the term openly. In fact, the NUG formalised its usage of the term in a landmark position paper on the Rohingya issue released on June 3. But, India remains more cognisant of the military regime’s position on the issue than of the civilian lawmakers’, which goes back to the simple fact that New Delhi has not yet recognised the NUG.
Further, while commending Bangladesh for hosting the refugees, India said that it has been supporting “people on the ground” in both Bangladesh and Rakhine State, in a reference to the limited humanitarian aid that New Delhi has extended to the refugees in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh and the development assistance it has given to Myanmar under the Rakhine State Development Programme. But there is little evidence that the RSDP has done any good to the Rohingya currently living in northern Rakhine State.
Notably, India called for the process of “safe, speedy and sustainable repatriation” of the Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh to Rakhine State to be “expedited”. This is somewhat different from the phrasing used in the UN General Assembly resolution and by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in general – “voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable repatriation”. Even the NUG has formally stated that it would support the repatriation only when it is done “voluntarily, safely and with dignity”.
India’s insistence on the “speedy” repatriation of Rohingya refugees is not new and matches the position of Bangladesh, which too has called for early return of refugees to Rakhine State. Dhaka remains wary of the pressures of hosting nearly a million refugees in its territory, something that New Delhi understands. Only last December, the Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh reaffirmed this convergence of positions between New Delhi and Dhaka.
But, India’s proposition of “speedy repatriation” is problematic. In general, sending refugees back to their home countries without ensuring that conditions on the ground are safe could put them at further risk of violence, persecution and re-displacement. That is certainly the case with the Rohingya, whose home country of Myanmar still does not recognise them as citizens and is currently being ruled by the same military that committed serious war crimes against them just four years ago. Hasty repatriation also often leads to a bypassing of the ‘voluntary’ aspect of the process, as authorities may fail to take informed consent from refugees in the rush to return them.
The Myanmar coup has finally shown the people of the country the common interest they have with the Rohingya in opposing military brutality. Aung San Suu Kyi never saw that, but Sunday's large Rohingya solidarity protest shows many ordinary people now do. https://t.co/exoXzokAO9 pic.twitter.com/cwcw78x8Yj— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth)
Why did India abstain?
The reason that India gave for abstaining is that its “views [had] not been reflected” in the draft that was considered for adoption. It reiterated that a “consultative and constructive approach involving the neighbouring countries and the region remains important” in peacefully resolving the issue.
Ambassador Tirumurti then went on to say, without mincing words: “The fact that there is lack of support from all neighbouring countries and from several countries in the region itself should hopefully serve as an eye-opener to those who chose to pursue a hasty course of action.”
Indeed, the entire South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation area, with the exception of the Maldives, abstained from voting, almost as a single bloc. This includes even Pakistan, which often differs with India at UN forums. Amongst Myanmar’s Southeast Asian neighbours, four out of ten ASEAN members – Thailand, Cambodia, Lao PDR and Brunei Darussalam – abstained.
India’s abstention is not surprising. Since the first day, New Delhi has taken a cautious position on the putsch, condemning the violence and stressing on the importance of the democratic transition without pointing fingers at the military or talking about any kind of sanctions. It has also, at least in official policy, refused to welcome asylum seekers fleeing the military regime’s brutal crackdown through the Northeastern border.
This tightrope strategy is tied to two things – the importance of Myanmar in India’s regional calculus; and New Delhi’s desire to preserve its channels of communication with the Burmese generals and as a corollary, prevent them from moving further into China’s lap. In short, India firmly believes in working with whoever is in power in Naypyitaw – which currently happens to be the military – to protect its own bilateral and regional interests.
Even the half democracy designed by the military was too much for the Burmese generals. Army step in after losing elections. Solidarity with the people of Myanmar. #militarycoup #Myanmarcoup #militaryjunta #AungSanSuuKyi pic.twitter.com/DhbgvbHxXn
— Giles Ji Ungpakorn (@GUngpakorn)
February 1, 2021
Beyond this, there is a broader subtext to Tirumurthi’s remarks.
Link : Here
No comments:
Post a Comment