The lack of a
unified message from the UN has weakened its influence on the government in the
Rakhine conflict.
The battle within
the United Nations country team over the direction of its work on human rights,
particularly in Rakhine State, was one of the worst kept secrets in Myanmar. It
was a bitter struggle between two sides that both believed their approach was the
most effective to tackle the myriad challenges.
(“Government”, in
this instance, refers to the government of the day; both the Union Solidarity
and Development Party administration of U Thein Sein and the National League
for Democracy government led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.)
This is not a new
fight. The Myanmar Times reported on it in June 2015, as tensions emerged over
Myanmar’s perceived role in the migrant crisis in the Bay of Bengal and Andaman
Sea.
In recent years, the
“pragmatic” faction – led by the UN resident and humanitarian coordinator, Ms Renata
Lok-Dessallien, who took up her position in January 2014 – has tended to win
out.
Painting this as
“development versus human rights” is too simplistic. But it’s also wrong to
view it as a purely ideological battle. Personalities have played a strong role
in the breakdown of relations between the different agencies, with many put off
by Lok-Dessallien’s management style.
The dispute reflects
the UN’s Byzantine internal politics, with the two factions on the ground here
both having their respective supporters outside Myanmar’s borders, in New York,
Geneva and so on.
As Myanmar Times
noted in 2015, “Calls for a more robust rights-oriented approach is strongest
at UN headquarters in New York, although divisions exist there too. Prince Zeid
Ra’ad Al Hussein of Jordan, the high commissioner for human rights appointed
last year, is said to be leading the charge with the backing of UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon who in turn is under pressure to act from Samantha Power,
US ambassador to the UN.”
The key takeaway
from all this though is that the lack of a unified message from the UN has
weakened its influence on the government and other actors in the Rakhine
conflict.
Critics of the
pragmatic approach would also point to the lack of progress in Rakhine State
over the past three years.
Now Lok-Dessallien
is on her way out, reportedly 18 months before the end of her five-year term,
will the approach of the UN country team change? And will it have much of an
impact on how Myanmar addresses the Rakhine crisis and other issues across the
country?
The answer to the
first question will depend on Lok-Dessallien’s replacement and whom that
person’s allies are within the UN system. There’s an argument the new
secretary-general, Antonio Guterres – formerly the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees – will ensure a tougher, human rights-focused stance in Myanmar.
Whoever takes up the job, they will need to create a coherent vision that all
agencies and UN personnel can support.
On the second, the
evidence to date suggests that Aung San Suu Kyi’s government is as unlikely to
heed lectures on human rights as its predecessors.
But that does not
mean that it should be given a free pass. Yes, every country has its own unique
context. That’s not an excuse to justify or explain away violations of basic
human rights.
Aung San Suu Kyi has
reportedly said she’ll only accept the recommendations of the Rakhine State
Advisory Commission led by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. But accept
and act on are different things. The lack of progress on implementing the
commission’s interim recommendations that were released in March is concerning.