Backgrounder: A year on from Myanmar’s ‘annus horribilis’ : Daily Current Affairs

Relevance: GS-2: Effects of Policies and Politics of Developed and Developing Countries on India’s interests, Indian Diaspora.

Key Phrases: India, Myanmar, Military Coup in Myanmar, ASEAN, annus horribilis : means a year of disaster or misfortune

Why in News ?

The coup in Myanmar will be a year old On February 1. On this day last year, the military seized power, violating the Constitution.
A decade-long experiment with hybrid democracy ended abruptly, paving the way for violence, oppression and instability.
The road ahead looks dark, but diplomatic efforts are under way to bring amelioration.

Background

Myanmar military’s role in domestic politics

Myanmar has been ruled by a military junta for many of the years since it gained independence from British colonial rule in 1948.
The Union of Burma began as a parliamentary democracy, like most of its newly independent neighbors on the Indian subcontinent.
But representative democracy only lasted until 1962, when General U Ne Win led a military coup and held power for the next twenty-six years.
Ne Win had brought in a new constitution in 1974, which was socialist and isolationist in nature.
This resulted in economic deterioration, widespread corruption, rapid shifts in economic policy related to Myanmar currency and food shortages.
This overall crisis resulted in the eruption of massive protests and a government crackdown in 1988.
After the 1988 crackdown, Ne Win resigned.
In 1989, a new military regime changed the country’s name from the Union of Burma to the Union of Myanmar.
The argument for this change is that Burma was a vestige of colonial era favoritism towards the Burman ethnic majority and Myanmar is more inclusive in nature.
In 2008, a new constitution was put forth by the military. This remains in place even today.
In 2011, the military junta was suddenly dissolved and a civilian parliament was established.
In 2015 Myanmar held its first nationwide, multiparty elections—considered to be the freest and fairest elections in decades—since the country’s transition away from military rule.
Suu Kyi became Myanmar’s de facto leader in 2015.
2021 February: Government overthrown in military coup.

Military Coup in Myanmar in 2021

In the November 2020 parliamentary election, Suu Kyi’s party National League for Democracy (NLD) secured the majority of the seats.
In the Myanmars’ Parliament, the military holds 25% of the total seats according to the 2008 military-drafted constitution and several key ministerial positions are also reserved for military appointees.
When the newly elected Myanmar lawmakers were to hold the first session of Parliament in 2021, the military imposed a state of emergency for one year citing massive voting fraud in the parliamentary elections.

1,498 people have been killed and 11,787 imprisoned till January 27, 2022, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners.
An exodus of people seeking refuge in neighbouring countries followed, which included over 15,000 people to Mizoram, India.

Internal Scene in Myanmar

The Opposition camp has called for a nationwide silent strike that ends in mass clapping, an act representing the indignation and the frustration of the people.
They are angry with the military that has oppressed them and imprisoned their elected leaders.
They are also frustrated with the international community as it failed to show up with a magic wand to restore democracy.
Some of their leaders are promising freedom from military rule by the end of 2022. But few believe them.
The military leadership has persisted in marching on the dangerous path it chose last January.
It convinced itself that the November 2020 elections were fraudulent, resulting in a landslide victory for the National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
It feared that, armed with a strong popular mandate, she would clip their wings and establish full democracy.
President Win Myint and Daw Suu Kyi were arrested and there was a brutal clampdown.
After the coup, the Opposition was active in articulating people’s anger.
A parallel government named the National Unity Government (NUG) was formed.
Slowly it lost momentum as Naypyitaw denounced NUG as “terrorists”, and used its overwhelming power to subdue the resistance.
The military now has an upper hand although normalcy still eludes the nation.
Instability has ruined the economy, with the World Bank terming it as “critically weak”.
The crisis also weakened the Government’s efforts to manage the pandemic. In short, Myanmar has just gone through its annus horribilis.

ASEAN’s Response to the Coup in Myanmar

Attention has now been focused on mediation by the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The leaders of ASEAN held an extraordinary meeting with Min Aung Hlaing on April 24 and agree on a five-point plan to tackle the crisis in Myanmar.
The “Five Point Consensus” included ending the escalating violence, launching talks between all parties and appointing a special envoy to facilitate the dialogue..
Insiders recall that Min Aung Hlaing’s consent was implicit. This became explicit when Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin formally conveyed Myanmar’s “commitment” to the plan last August.
But the military resiled from its implementation.
With uncharacteristic firmness, ASEAN barred the Senior General’s participation in its summits.
It offered representation at the non-political level which Myanmar turned down.
In this impasse, Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen, the current ASEAN Chair, has adopted a softer approach which is backed by Thailand and Laos.
- It aims at adjusting to the military’s refusal to compromise on its key requirements such as denial of access to Daw Suu Kyi for ASEAN mediators, and little dilution of the 2008 Constitution.
Other ASEAN States led by Indonesia are opposed to Cambodia’s diplomacy.
But long-time ASEAN watchers believe that through further consultations, the grouping will craft internal consensus and re-adapt its negotiating mandate.
Many in the international community are now questioning whether ASEAN has a productive role to play in responding to the coup.
After all, its policy of non-interference in internal affairs has impeded ASEAN’s response to human rights challenges and threats to democracy throughout the region for a long time. Their response to the coup in Myanmar is no exception.
ASEAN has missed many opportunities to play a constructive role in resolving the crisis in Myanmar. Instead, its actions have often served to legitimize the country’s military rulers.

Other Countries’ Response to the Coup

The USA President threatened to reimpose sanctions on Myanmar following a coup by the country’s military leaders and called for a concerted international response to press them to relinquish power.
The West exerts influence in Myanmar, but it has been unable to comprehend the dynamics of power.
The United States and the European Union have not accurately assessed the military’s resolve and core conviction that without its driving role, national unity and integrity would disappear.
The western policy to promote democracy and impose sanctions against the military have produced minimal results.
The media paid huge attention to Russia’s endeavors to woo Myanmar by increasing its defense cooperation since the coup.
But the principal player is China, not Russia, despite evident coordination between the two.
Beijing enjoys enormous leverage in the ‘Golden Land’ through its control over several ethnic armed organisations, projects covered by the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the regime’s protection via veto in the Security Council, and a thick cheque book.
Whoever wields power in Naypyitaw develops stakes in close partnership with China.
But Myanmar’s rulers also desire independence and balance in their external policy, provided the international community gives them the means for it.
Japan understands this geopolitical reality, but acting by itself, Tokyo cannot make a difference.
- It should act in coordination with ASEAN and India.

India’s policy

As the world’s largest democracy, India is always happy to work with fellow democracies, but it has never been in the business of exporting democracy.
Nevertheless, it has done much to shape and to strengthen diplomatic efforts at the UN and through its support to ASEAN for putting Myanmar’s transition to democracy back on the rails.
This line was reiterated by India’s Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla in his interactions with the top military leadership in December 2021.
- He was given a patient hearing even though his request to meet Daw Suu Kyi was denied, as was expected.
Besides, New Delhi provided one million doses of “Made in India” vaccines, and humanitarian assistance to the people of Myanmar.
For India, the well-established two-track policy of supporting democracy and maintaining cordial relations with the Government remains in operation.
India has to protect the state’s interests, guided by realism and pragmatism.
It has to discourage a mass influx of refugees; cut the capability of insurgent groups to endanger security in the Northeast from Myanmar soil; safeguard the ongoing projects and investments; and, above all, counter China’s growing influence.

Conclusion

India should continue to engage with the present regime in Myanmar working towards mutual development of people of both the countries while it should support sharing experiences in constitutionalism and federalism to assist Myanmar in resolving the prevailing stalemate.

Mains Question:

Q. Do you think that the India – Myanmar relationship is important for maintaining stability and peace in Northeast India? Discuss the challenges in India-Myanmar relations.

Source: The Hindu