The arguments being
advanced against the UN fact-finding mission to Myanmar lack weight and
credibility.
 |
| A burnt village in Maungdaw Township, in the aftermath of a security crackdown following attacks on police outposts on October 9 last year. (Teza Hlaing | Frontier) |
By KHIN ZAW WIN (FRONTIER)
Monday, May 08, 2017
A PROBE into
allegations of human rights abuses isn’t something relished by the incumbents
and hosts, not to mention the perpetrators. But how else are we, and the world,
to keep tabs on unpleasant happenings?
The United Nations
Human Rights Council is not a court of international law and it neither
dispenses justice nor punitive measures. The reactions from the Myanmar government
to the council’s decision to deploy a fact-finding mission to Myanmar may be
understandable but they are not excusable – especially as they come from an
elected government that likes to flaunt its democratic credentials. In truth,
the term “human rights” appears only minimally – if at all – in the present
government’s vocabulary.
What I wish to say
is not meant to castigate the government and its leaders. It is meant in the
spirit of advocating a sensible approach to the issue at hand – an issue that
cannot and should not be dismissed so easily. To put it another way:I do not
want to see a bad situation made worse.
Rather than seeking
ways for a government to wriggle out of a difficult situation, we should take
the long view. In the nearly three decades since 1988 there has been no proper
accounting of what had happened throughout the period. Both those who
perpetrated and those who suffered have their own narratives. If the years
before 1988 were added, there would be more to account for. If amnesia were to
be forcibly imposed again, there will be twisted consequences.
As dictatorships and
other repressive regimes fell around the world, a handful of countries
established truth commissions to look into the painful past. Sometimes they
encompassed truth and reconciliation. According to the magnitude of the crimes
committed, sometimes international tribunals were convened. In all these
proceedings, a term commonly used is “lustration”: bringing light into dark and
hidden corners of a nation’s past.
The arguments being
advanced against the fact-finding mission lack weight and credibility. To
someone who offers heavy prescriptions of the rule of law, a reminder would be
that victim communities may wonder whether they are being subjected to no rule
of law, or whether they have too much of it.
The fact-finding
mission will be carrying out what Myanmar as a country is unwilling or
otherwise incapable of doing. It doesn’t necessarily follow that its findings
have to be accepted, but its work will help to make Myanmar a stronger and
healthier country. Conversely, impeding or interfering with its activities will
ensure that Myanmar’s sickness continues. The cleavages will then widen. That
is the choice before us.
At stake is
considerably more than the Rohingya issue alone. Myanmar is a country that has
come back from the brink. It has been a costly return from dictatorship but it
has been largely successful. It is being looked upon as a possible middle power
capable of making a difference in the region. It is standing up to a
neighbouring behemoth.
Such being the case,
the belittling of human rights is even more unbecoming. It suggests that the
major concern is regime survival (even for a democratic government) and that
Myanmar risks sliding down again.
It would be a
terrible mistake to treat the fact-finding mission as a focus of negative sentiments.
It can be a mirror held up to the country’s lapses. Recognising them for what
they are can motivate the Myanmar people to fashion a more inclusive and
accommodating future for themselves. In truth, this is the only future there
is.