Sunday Times 2
Lanka, Myanmar in turmoil face parallel problems
View(s):The world awoke aghast last week to the announcement by the military junta of Myanmar that four activists of imprisoned leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s political party had been executed. They had been accused of conspiring to commit acts of terror against the military junta, against which the great majority of people of Myanmar are revolting. The four executed include former legislator Phyo Zeya Thaw and prominent activist Kyaw Min Yu, popularly known as Jimmy.
Despite Myanmar being under military rule for decades, the death penalty had not been imposed for decades, reports said.
News of the executions of four well-known activists resulted in expressions of outrage and condemnation by world leaders and governments. In a joint statement, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, Japan, the UK, the US, and Canada condemned the executions while ASEAN of which Myanmar is a member described it as ‘highly reprehensible’.
The UN Special Rapporteur for Myanmar, Tom Andrews, said he was ‘devastated’ by the executions and that UN member states must honour the lives of those executed by making use of this depraved act and make it a turning point for the world’s response to this crisis.
It took the world one year and five months to awaken since 50 million people of Myanmar went under the military jackboot and the people rose in unison to oppose the junta.
The Association for Assistance for Political Prisoners (Burma) has reported that since the ouster of Aung San Suu Kyi’s party on February1, 2021– the day on which they were to take over power – more than 14,900 people have been arrested, 11,759 remain in detention, and 76 persons sentenced to death.
Aung Myo Min, a Human Rights Activist of the National Unity Government opposing the military regime, citing the execution of these activists following secret trials in which they were neither represented by lawyers nor had a right of appeal, said: “What else do we need to prove how cruel the murderous military is?”
People protest in the wake of executions, in Yangon, Myanmar in this screen grab obtained from a social media video. Reuters
Sri Lanka is a country of over 20 million people, of which 75 percent are Buddhists and have had extremely close relations with the people of Burma over centuries. Burma with 50 million people and over 80 percent Buddhists has been the land of the Golden Pagodas and many devoted Sri Lankan Buddhists hope to visit Burma — as it has been known to them — at least once in a lifetime.
Today, despite the historical links and common religion, the two countries are far apart in their systems of governance and have little or no inter-government relations. What is common now is that both countries are in severe turmoil politically and financially. Yet the parallels that these two countries may take can be discerned.
Sri Lanka, a democracy, has been standing aloof from the tragic events in Myanmar during the Rajapaksa regimes. While the military junta imprisoned Myanmar’s undisputed leader Suu Kyi and leaders of her party that had swept the polls and the entire populace took to the streets demanding the installation of the Suu Kyi government, the Rajapaksa regime looked the other way.
Some western nations after Feb 1 coup placed special sanctions on selected members of the junta, slapped asset freezes on military-controlled institutions and prohibited investments but whether they had crippling effects is in doubt, for the junta carries on regardless although much of the country is rebelling against it. The Gotabaya Rajapaksa regime showed no inclination in helping Myanmar’s Buddhists in dire straits but instead was reported to have purchased a large stock of rice, thus helping the junta with its foreign currency requirements. Perhaps birds of a military feather too flock together.
Myanmar today is unabashedly a military dictatorship, ruled by Khaki-clad military soldiers strutting about on platforms of power announcing policy decisions. It has been under many military dictatorships since Gen Ne Win seized power in 1962. Win and continued till 1981. His regime was followed by successive juntas with brief intermissions and a junta continues to rule to date.
ABC news last week in a report on the executions quoted the Junta spokesperson, Maj Gen Zaw Min Tun as rejecting criticism. He said the executions were carried out ‘in line with the country’s law and it was not correct to say that it was for personal reasons’.
“We knew that there may be criticism when the death penalties were handed down and conducted in line with domestic law. However, we did it for domestic stability, for the rule of law and order and security. The executed men were convicted of crimes involving supporting violent terrorist activities and acts. The punishment was appropriate. If we considered leniency for those who controlled crimes, it would have been cruel without sympathy for the victims.”
What is even more outrageous is that the junta has announced that it was going to resume executions of prisoners and has 113 others who have been sentenced to death although 41 of these were convicted in absentia. It is reported that 2,120 civilians have been killed by the security forces since the uprising against the junta began. The last execution had been under Gen. Ne Win in 1976.
A parallel we see in Sri Lanka today is of politicians of the former Rajapaksa regimes still remaining as legislators and holding a majority in parliament. But it is doubtful whether they have control of the country or its people and sound identical arguments as Myanmar’s military Junta spokesman.
The legislators claim that crackdown on the activists who drove President Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of the country and made him resign from the presidency are violating the law of the land, law and order and they are terrorists! They should be punished according to the law.
The imposition of such laws have been possible because the Sri Lankan body politic opted to follow the constitutional process for the nation to recover from the severe economic crisis that is threatening the existence of the people.
The people are by no means supporting the persecution of the activists and instead are demanding that President Ranil Wickremesinghe appointed by Gotabaya Rajapaksa stands down. They want a multi- party government that will elect a temporary president of their choice to enable a new government to be elected in a free and fair countrywide election. Another parallel that could be discerned is that both Sri Lanka and Myanmar are Theravada Buddhist countries along with Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Laos. These countries, save for Thailand and Vietnam to a certain extent, are destitute with no powerful countries or groups to come to their rescue.
The Islamic countries have the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) with the backing of some of the richest of oil rich countries. The Africans have the Organisation of African States and Christian countries with their own denominations have organisations and even governments going to their rescue when in difficulties. Ukraine is a country which today deserves the assistance it is receiving and deserves even more.
How many all-weather friendly nations does Sri Lanka have? Japan was one such country that continued to assist Sri Lanka after World War II, but the Gotabaya regime apparently kicked into its own goal by trying to please China by scrapping the million-dollar light rail transport system over Colombo. China, too, was an all-weather friend of Lanka. But during the Gotabaya regime, even that, too, seems to have come a cropper while trying to implement a neutral Non Aligned policy between China and India.
India has been keeping Sri Lankans alive with emergency supplies of fuel, food, and medicines but the flow has been slow and there are questions being raised about loan agreements signed between the two countries particularly in regard to strategic interests. Relations of island nations with intercontinental giants are never free of suspicions as evident from the history of Indo-Lanka relations.
The parallel of India-Lanka relations can be seen in Myanmar-China relations. China can certainly help Myanmar because its foreign policy is based on specific relations between the countries and its peoples but not particular regimes. The conundrum on this issue is whether with China’s push for land and sea routes to break out from South East Asia, a strong and independent Myanmar would be preferable to one dependent on China. Myanmar provides an open land route from South China to the Bay of Bengal.
(The writer is former editor of The Sunday Island, The Island and consultant editor of the Sunday Leader)