21.01.2007
The Value of the People of Burma
_ By Myat Oo
A US-draft resolution calling for an end to human rights abuses in Burma was vetoed by China and Russia in the United Nations Security Council meeting on Friday January 12. South Africa also opposed the resolution, while Qatar, Indonesia and Republic of Congo abstained. The aim of this article is not to support or reject the proposed resolution, but to pinpoint the way the value of the people of Burma has been conceived by those who believe that Burma is not an international threat.
Myanmar is not a threat to peace and security, said Wang Guangya, China’s UN ambassador. China is not alone in saying this, but is joined by countries that are antagonistic to taking action against Burma through the UN.
The decision came out last Friday was frustrating because it was justified by the fact that Burma is not a threat to ‘international’ peace and security. Such justification begs three challenges. The first one is: What about the value of individuals and the peace and security of the people of Burma? The argument that Burma is not an international threat sounds like the junta not pointing a gun at anyone outside Burma means that Burmese people deserve daily human rights violations in their own country and inhumanely treatment in neighbouring countries – human trafficking by sex industries, fist-raping by the police and burned to death alive by employers, to name a few.
The reasoning of those who conceive Burma as not being an international threat implies that as long as they don’t suffer, they do not care about the suffering of the people of Burma. Apparently, this is a colonial mindset that only values the lives of their own people, but not that of the rest. Daily episodes of the people struggling to escape from poverty and the threat of violence prove that the lives of the people of Burma have been completely undervalued, ignored and scarified under the shadow of the so-called “international security”. In fact, the Burmese junta failing to be defined as a “international security threat” should not mean insecurity, chaos and gross human rights violations suffered by the people of Burma are ignorable.
The second challenge is the notion of “international security” itself. If framed in terms of territorial security, Burma, of course, is not a threat because it has no will to invade any country. But framed in terms of human security, the junta is a threat to regional and international human security because it causes problems through migration, drug and sex trafficking, and environmental abuses.
Massive flows of migrant workers and refugees to neighbouring countries due to poverty and human rights violations cause significant regional concerns. There have been recent clashes between Karen refugees and local authorities in Thailand. In Malaysia, strife has appeared between employers and employees. These tensions have increasingly been framed in racial terms.
The issues of HIV/AIDS in Burma and among Burmese sex workers trafficked in Thailand are paramount concerns. Deforestation and dam projects have potential adverse effects for regional environmental degradation, biodiversity lost and watershed resource erosion, which can have a huge impact on both regional and global climate change. Drug export is an uncontrollable matter as well. Moreover, there has been evidence that the government is developing nuclear power plant. Thus, it is not valid to argue that Burma is not an international threat.
The third challenge is: what constitutes international and national? Talking about ‘international’ today takes national territories as neutral that have existed since time immemorial, rather than seeing them as human constructions of just about five or six decades ago. This was when nation-state and the so-called international emerged. This was when people in remote areas and migratory groups became parts of a “national” under the ruling elites.
When the central elites mistreat the people who are now part of a ‘nation’, it is framed in a ‘national’ context. In other words, it is framed as ‘internal’ matters, not international concerns. Bringing history into discussion and see human beings without human-made borders, the argument that ‘human rights violations in Burma are internal matters, therefore we would not care’ becomes illogical. Unfortunately, human-made borders have been used as a basis principle to let the people of Burma being killed, raped and tortured and exploited in a notorious way.
Putting these three challenges together, the claim made by those citing “international peace and security” lacks sympathy, reveals ignorance, and exemplified unethical.
There are two Muslim countries that abstained in the voting of the resolution: Qatar and Indonesia. It is disappointing that these countries are reluctant to oppose to the government that oppresses Muslims in its country. There have been numerous reports about the oppression against Muslims in Burma who constitute about 10-15% of the country’s population. Old mosques are not allowed to repaired, let along the right to build new ones. Marriage and travelling are not allowed in some parts of the country. Whenever political events seem emerging, the government creates clashes between Muslims and fake Buddhist monks, hindering political changes. To recognize the value of the people of Burma, including that of Muslims, Qatar and Indonesia must turn against the junta’s inhumane abuses.
.
Your Comments here_ can use win-Burmese fonts; but not symbols (:/\<>!|{]~#$)
Quote of the year:
Last week's English article
