Option 1: Diplomacy. A sensible course of action – if it can be guaranteed that power-sharing would bring an end to human suffering. But Burmese opposition leaders and civil society groups are clear: this is not the time for mediating ceasefires or a negotiated settlement: “No dialogue can take place until the military junta stops its violence”, they say.
Quite right. Persecuted minorities shouldn’t be forced to engage with, nor yield to the demands of, their oppressor. Mediation should always be voluntary. Foreign powers must be very careful to avoid actions that could be construed as legitimising the junta’s right to rule, such as allowing army generals to participate in international forums, stage sham elections, or dominate peace talks. Lest we forget: the military is guilty of genocide.
Option 2: Targeted communities resort to both non-violent and violent means of resistance. E.g. In northern Shan state, the Three Brotherhood Alliance (a coalition of ethnic armed organisations) recently launched a series of counter-offensives against local military units. They recovered control of 100 strategic outposts, which prompted the junta’s first public acknowledgement of the challenge it is facing. A glimmer of hope, perhaps, to the wider pro-democracy movement.
Yet the armed resistance is riddled with division. And even their keenest supporter would admit that retaliatory attacks carry a high risk of perpetuating the cycle of conflict. The Three Brotherhood offensive provoked a horrific response from local military commanders, who doubled down on their efforts to suppress the opposition in Shan state. More than 30,000 civilians were displaced. Innocent families were, once again, caught in the crossfire of conflict.
Option 3: Equitable, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance. This is among the top priorities of Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART). We believe strongly in the Right to Life, irrespective of a person’s belief or background. We are proud to stand alongside isolated minorities who are in desperate need of food, water, shelter and healthcare. There should be no obstruction to aid.
Herein lies another problem. When applying for licences to conduct our operations, organisations like HART are faced with many layers of bureaucracy and a labyrinth of legal injunctions. The registration process has become so complicated, and the penalties for inadvertently violating the rules so severe, that many aid agencies are reluctant even to try. I’ve heard reports from inside the country that humanitarian workers face frequent intimidation. And in some cases detention and arrest.
Armed troops disrupt the flow of essential supplies to non-military-controlled areas. As a result, civilians are increasingly dependent on indigenous networks for emergency relief. This is especially true in the border regions; remote jungles and forests where access to basic services is very limited.
Indigenous networks are perfectly placed to locate entry points along the border for the informal delivery of aid. It is risky business. The law forbids the provision of relief to areas not controlled by the military. But without cross-border humanitarian assistance, vulnerable communities are left to fend for themselves.
Option 4: Sanctions. Western nations, including the UK, use strong rhetoric to condemn the military. They speak plainly about human rights violations and, since day 10 of the military coup, have imposed restrictive measures against military officials and army-linked firms. Most commentators agree: strong words and targeted sanctions are steps in the right direction. The latter, in particular, is an effective means of limiting access to fuel and finance, which curtails the military’s ability to perpetrate atrocities.
Commentators also agree, however, that countries like the UK should be doing much more. As one UN official said recently, “children cannot eat political rhetoric”. After 1,000+ days of junta brutality, the people of Burma deserve more than “empty promises” or “UN resolutions that go nowhere”. Individuals in high office need to show more oomph, i.e. principled, consistent and decisive application of international law.