April 23, 2025
BANGKOK – Regrettably, the recent devastating earthquake in Myanmar compounds the longstanding pain and suffering inflicted on the peoples of the country due to authoritarianism and human rights violations. Can such a catastrophe also be a catalyst for transformative, constructive change?
At first glance, there is the opportunity for a ceasefire and to enable humanitarian aid to be delivered on a non-discriminatory basis. Yet, in recent days, the junta in power has shown its “mala fides” (bad faith) by continuing to bombard areas under opposition forces and by impeding the delivery of aid to areas controlled by dissident elements.
There should thus be a clarion call for and from the global community to counter this objectionable opportunism. There is a need to prevent those who are now in power in Myanmar from profiteering individually and systemically from the process, with robust monitoring of aid activities in the country.
On this front, Thailand’s current position is regressively more than ambivalent. The authorities of the country enabled the leader of the junta from Myanmar to attend in person the most recent Summit of BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) in Bangkok, when the preferred position should have been to follow the precedent offered by the United Nations and ASEAN.
To date, the UN has not invited that junta leader to attend its key meetings, bearing in mind that there was a coup d’etat in Myanmar at the beginning of 2021 that was condemned worldwide.
ASEAN has kept the junta leader formally at a distance, shunning the possibility of his presence at potential or actual ASEAN meetings, while tolerating lower key representation in various settings.
Are Thai leader(s) undermining the preferred position emanating from the UN and ASEAN? Inherently, the danger is that the so-called Thai national policy is based on personalized interests, clandestinely masticating voraciously, rather than national interests embodying a coherent national policy.
There are at least five elements at the heart of a much needed national policy which must transcend personalized interests. Such policy should thus be non-partisan and complement multilateral standards rather than undermine them.
First, the national policy should cut off the lifeline to the junta, at least on three fronts: Money, arms/weaponry and legitimacy. This was the call from UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar Tom Andrews who briefed a seminar held in the Thai Parliament last month. Importantly, he welcomed the fact that a key Thai bank is now refusing to transfer money to a bank in Myanmar, for fear that the latter helps to feed the junta and its forces.
Thai companies should be careful when they invest in the country to avoid being complicit in human rights violations. This is linked with the blood money that follows from the exploitation of natural resources, including precious minerals, oil and gas, as well as related energy sectors on which the junta thrives.
Due diligence measures are much needed from the business sector to identify the risks interlinked with autocratic practices and human rights transgressions. Mitigation measures are required, and at times, an exit strategy may be needed. Failure to undertake these measures may lead to sanctions from the international setting.
There is then the issue of legitimacy. The question “which governmental representative should sit in the UN General Assembly?” depends on the credentials of the authorities claiming legitimacy and this is not yet resolved in the UN. Pending this, the junta has not been allowed to take the seat of Myanmar. Needless to say, the idea of national elections organized by the junta in Myanmar, tentatively in 2026, should be repudiated unequivocally.
Second, development aid and humanitarian aid to the peoples of Myanmar should be sustained. This was a challenging issue even before the earthquake, especially due to radical changes at the top of the international aid framework, resulting from major aid suspension from a key superpower.
With the new plight ensuing from the quake, the call to increase at least humanitarian aid for emergency response is critically important, and there must be an emphasis on access to all territories needing help.
While government aid from other countries remains essential to help Myanmar, creative means to raise funds and deliver help to desperate areas and communities are essential. Interestingly, some civil society actors are exploring “crowdfunding” to raise contributions and to access the local population through ingenious channels. Thailand should at least be a facilitator for these processes.
Third, the space for humanitarian actors must be retained in Myanmar. The UN, through its various programs and activities has been present in the country for a long time, despite the vagaries of national politics. It must continue to work in the country, complemented by civil society inputs. From a humanitarian angle, cross-border access is important to deliver aid, while cross-line operations, across the various regions in Myanmar, are essential.
Fourth, the protection of civilians remains an all-pervasive imperative. Before the quake, there were nearly 20 million people needing assistance in the country. There were some 3.5 million internally displaced persons and 2 million refugees in neighboring countries.
Doubtlessly, the figures have increased due to the recent disaster. The protection issue calls for accountability related to those who commit major crimes against the population. There are various tracks in this regard. For instance, a key case on the issue of (alleged) genocide is now before the International Court of Justice. Individual criminal responsibility of key military leaders is now being addressed by the International Criminal Court.
At the very least, Thailand should open its door to offer temporary asylum to refugees from the country and avoid push-backs of refugees, a practice in breach of international law and the country’s anti-torture law.
Lastly, multi-levelled leverages should be maximized. While the recent humanitarian aid offered by BIMSTEC countries is welcome, the member countries should aim for peace in the region, coupled with a return to the democratic process and respect for human rights in Myanmar. At a time when the multilateral setting is fragmenting precipitously, new friendships for peace, human rights, democracy and sustainable development should be nurtured.
There is a future for countries, big and small, such as “ASEAN-plus-BIMSTEC-plus-Others”, to converge as a Plurilateral Platform for Action, offering hope and help, configuring and calibrating a collective conscience.
The writer is a professor emeritus at Chulalongkorn University. He has helped the UN as a special rapporteur, independent expert and member of UN Commissions of Inquiry on Human Rights. The views expressed are personal.