The Tribune

IN today’s troubled times, when one can read at the click of a mouse about extreme human suffering somewhere in the world, there are those who refuse to accept any responsibility for helping unknown people in distress in some distant and unknown country.

By contrast, there are others who consider that in the modern inter-connected world there is a moral imperative to alleviate suffering wherever it occurs. It can be argued one such case is Myanmar where some three months after a military coup its leaders have intensified their crackdown throughout the country. The horrifying drama of death and destruction being played out on TV screens around the world has led to growing pressure for the international community to intervene. For, despite the regime’s efforts to conceal their actions – by, for example, cutting off the internet – the extent of the brutality has been exposed for all to see.

Amid worldwide condemnation, the US has accused the security forces of a “reign of terror” in quelling the resistance by defiant and determined young anti-coup protesters who are calling for the release of detainees and the restoration of civilian rule. More than 750 people have been killed and thousands wounded while over 3,000 have been detained, including President Win Myint and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of her National League for Democracy party.

As a reminder to readers, Myanmar gained its independence from Britain in 1948. It has a population of 54 million and its main religion is Buddhism. The armed forces ruled the country from 1962 to 2011 when they began ushering in a return to civilian government. On February 2, they seized control of the country again, citing widespread electoral fraud, after Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won a landslide victory in elections in November, 2020.

Many countries have expressed horror as they see Myanmar sliding into protracted violence, and already the US, UK, EU and others have imposed different forms of sanctions and an arms embargo.

The pressing question now is whether the United Nations will take collective action to stop the junta in its tracks when, instead of acting to defend and secure its own people, it is doing the exact opposite and attacking them. The UN’s primary purpose is, of course, to maintain international peace and security. Even though, according to its Charter, it is not authorised to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, it now has a global commitment in the shape of its “Responsibility to Protect” principle, also known as R2P. This is based on the responsibility of each state to protect its own people and it was endorsed by all member states in 2005. It was established to end the worst forms of violence and to ensure the international community never again fails to halt the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

The UN has already said that military intervention as a last resort would be likely to lead to a massive loss of life. So, in the first instance, R2P in the context of Myanmar means finding ways of dealing with the crisis that will have the maximum effect on the junta and a minimum negative impact on the people. These include diplomatic initiatives to isolate the junta and to work with other countries to bring pressure on it.

In the past, there has been a reluctance to impose UN sanctions and apply too much pressure on the military rulers for fear of undermining Aung San Suu Kyi and the fragile democratisation process – and there was always the likelihood of a Chinese veto in the Security Council lurking in the background. But analysts say this softly-softly approach may have emboldened the military government to act as they wished without the expectation of serious international consequences.

Now, it is argued, the gloves should be off. This means imposition of a UN arms embargo together with global travel bans and asset freezes on the entire military leadership and increased humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable in the country while also drawing up plans to assist refugees escaping the violence. But China as a protector of Myanmar, and backed by Russia, may be a stumbling block, after having already forced the weakening of a UN Security Council statement condemning the coup. However, China has also called for a return to democratic norms and the release of the detainees.

So where is all this likely to end? Since 1948, the UN has conducted successful peacekeeping operations in dozens of countries like – to name just a few – Cambodia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mozambique and Namibia. There have also been many failures. But, because of the power of the veto available to the five permanent members of the Security Council, some critics say the UN, which has no armed forces of its own, has become less responsive to crises over the years. However, if the situation deteriorates further and sanctions and other measures do not work, presumably a peacekeeping force cannot be ruled out.

The cynics maintain, incidentally, that ultimately UN support does not always matter in different circumstances when, for example, a large state presses forward with its own aggression – and they cite the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq which was declared by the then Secretary General to have been illegal despite US and UK leaders claiming otherwise.

Meanwhile, it is reported the UN Human Rights Council has been gathering evidence against Myanmar’s military leaders, including in respect of earlier atrocities against the Rohingya Muslims, so that one day it is possible they could be brought to justice through the International Criminal Court.

One thing Boris is good at - winning

Since, under the Westminster system, a general election is normally held every five years, one is not due in The Bahamas until this time next year. But those who are intrigued by politics will have followed closely the recent speculation about what might trigger an earlier election. Such people also tend to be fascinated by political developments in other countries so they may be interested in last week’s local elections in Britain.

These elections were cancelled in 2020 because of the coronavirus restrictions. Last Thursday’s election round is said to have been the largest since the 1970s and it was also the first test of public opinion at the ballot box since the pandemic. Millions of people across England, Scotland and Wales cast votes for local councils, mayors, police commissioners and members of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments – and there was also a by-election in Hartlepool in the northeast of England.

The results across-the-board have shown in England the Conservative party racking up a string of stunning poll victories and, in particular, gaining control of a series of local councils.

So, given the significance of this spectacular performance, I find myself writing once more about the Tory leader, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, having last week covered the controversy about refurbishment of his Downing Street flat.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of the Tories’ success was the by-election in Hartlepool. A traditional safe Labour stronghold, it returned a Conservative MP for the first time and with a substantial majority. Such a result would have been unthinkable even a couple of years ago and it has been described as a political earthquake.

Nonetheless, some commentators are already suggesting the plaudits being heaped upon Mr Johnson by the UK press have become excessive. To my eye, comparisons with the long-serving Margaret Thatcher as an “era-defining” Prime Minister and predictions about a rosy future for him may be premature. But there is no denying his success at winning elections - from gaining a second term as Mayor of London in a supposedly Left-wing city to his successful leadership of the Leave campaign at the time of the 2016 referendum, and then winning the Tory leadership contest followed by a landslide general election victory with a thumping majority in 2019 and, finally, departure from the EU.

Boris Johnson’s shortcomings are well documented – from accusations of being unreliable and untrustworthy in cutting corners, ignoring rules and flouting convention to being called by some a clownish buffoon with a chaotic personal life. But he has managed to fight off everything that has been thrown at him and even survived a scare with COVID-19 that landed him in intensive care.

It is clear he is a popular figure generally. People like him and think “he’s doing the best for us”, not least, of course, because of the successful rollout of the vaccination programme which is seen as the most effective among leading Western countries. With his bonhomie and sense of optimism, he also seems to have the ability - often rare in politicians - to communicate with ordinary people on their own terms. All that said, it seems to me that the Conservatives have romped home in these elections because they are now seen as the “people’s party” which is in tune with the national mood — and that means emphasising patriotism and a belief in the nation’s heritage together with the importance of well-funded public services, toughening up on law and order and a commitment to spreading opportunity and investment throughout the country.

One astute commentator described the outcome of this election round as a popular incumbent savaging an unpopular opposition. But it is normally the other way around at local elections which are traditionally used as a protest vote by those who are unhappy with an unpopular sitting government. It remains to be seen whether or not the results represent a long-term political realignment, as some maintain. But most people must surely hope they do not lead to a permanently weakened opposition at Westminster – because holding a government to account is a vital role in a properly functioning democracy.

Keeping a close eye on what’s on the agenda

An international event which I need to cover this week is the meeting in London of the G7 Foreign Ministers, not only in view of its inherent importance but also because it is a precursor to next month’s meeting in Cornwall in the west of England of G7 leaders when some of the issues discussed will be addressed again.

The June meeting is due to be attended by President Biden who will be making his first overseas trip since entering the White House. The G7 includes the UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the EU, and last week’s meeting was also attended by guest nations Australia, India, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and Brunei as the current chair of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations).

This G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting was the first major in-house diplomatic gathering since the beginning of the pandemic and their first since 2019. It was an opportunity for the leading democracies to exchange views on pressing geopolitical issues that threaten to undermine democracy and its freedoms and human rights and to agree action on the most pressing foreign and security challenges. Discussions included relations with Russia, China and Iran, as well as the crisis in Myanmar, the violence in Ethiopia, and the ongoing war in Syria. But the agenda was, of course, much wider than that.

There is no space today to go into detail, but what struck me most forcibly was the size and scope of the long and comprehensive communique at the end of the meeting. It spoke of the G7’s general commitment to strengthen democracy, open societies, shared values and the rules-based international order and its reaffirmation that free and fair trade and a secure flow of capital, data, knowledge, ideas and talent was essential to long-term prosperity.

In more than 80 longish paragraphs the communique set out detailed positions on a huge range of issues; and, in a section about climate change, there was an acknowledgement of the impact of global warming on the most vulnerable communities and the need for financial support of Small Island Developing States.

While a commitment to such assistance is encouraging, it is not new. But it might make people wonder again about the extent our own government is monitoring what funding from international sources could be made available to small counties like The Bahamas to fight the effects of global warming – and this will surely become more important as donor countries prepare for the major UN climate change conference in Scotland in November.