• According to the 2023 ANNI Report on the Performance of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) performed “averagely” as compared to other NHRIs in Asian countries.

• The HRCSL received an overall score of 21/44 for its  performance across the following categories: independence, mandate, pluralism, protection, and promotion activities. 
• Its key challenges are related to: 1) independence in the selection and appointment process of commissioners and staff; 2) budget cuts; 3) long-pending releases of reports; 4) lack of authority in ensuring implementation of recommendations; 5) prioritisation of cases; and 5) the need for more promotional activities and meaningful engagement with civil society.

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka – 7 June 2024 – Although the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) performed the strongest in terms of “independence,” it is yet to resolve challenges affecting its performance as a human rights institution (NHRI).

These findings are based on the 2023 ANNI Report on the Performance of NHRIs in Asia. NHRIs are independent bodies–created by a country’s law or constitution–mandated to promote and protect human rights. 

During this period, a major challenge to the Commission’s independence was its appointment process, particularly the role of the Constitutional Council in recommending candidates to the President. Additionally, despite having autonomy to conduct investigations without state interference, the Commission’s budgetary control by the state remains a significant issue.

Like other state organisations, the HRCSL also underwent budget cuts, preventing it from effectively carrying out awareness programmes. Due to the state’s bankruptcy, the government could no longer support the Commission’s education programmes in 2021 and 2022. 

Furthermore, the Commission was unable to access funds from external donors due to complex bureaucratic processes. 

Other challenges impacting the HRCSL’s performance were its delays in releasing reports; lack of authority in ensuring the implementation of its own recommendations; poor prioritisation of cases; and lack of promotional activities and meaningful engagement with civil society. 

The Commission’s accreditation status was downgraded from “A” to “B” by the Global Alliance of NHRIs Sub-Committee on Accreditation (GANHRI-SCA) in 2021, owing to changes in the selection and appointment process of the Commission in the wake of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution.

The findings in the report show that  the HRCSL performed the poorest in the “promotion” category. This was exacerbated by the Commission’s lack of international engagement with human rights bodies and networks as well as its delays in releasing its Annual Reports.

On the upside, the HRCSL fared well in terms of operational autonomy and its provisions on appointment and dismissal, under the “Independence” and “Mandate” categories, owing to its broad powers as enshrined in Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) Act 1996.

Measuring the performance of NHRIs

The biennial report is published by the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) as the Secretariat of the Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI). Through a civil society assessment, the report reviewed the performance of 13 NHRIs in Asia from 2021 to 2022. The report assesses NHRIs’ compliance with the Paris Principles, the international minimum standards for effective, legitimate, and credible NHRIs. 

The chapter on HRCSL was authored by LST, ANNI’s member organisation in Sri Lanka. It assessed the performance of the HRCSL in the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent economic crisis. The chapter launch occurred in Colombo on 30 May 2024, bringing together civil society and HRCSL representatives to discuss the country’s human rights situation.

“In Sri Lanka, many people are looking to the HRCSL to investigate arbitrary detentions and custodial deaths, torture and discrimination, and there are many appeals to the  HRCSL on these issues. The HRCSL has expressed an openness to working with civil society, and we welcome that,” said Sakuntala Kadirgamar, Executive Director of the Law and Society Trust (LST).

“The HRCSL acknowledges the need for further changes and is implementing GANHRI’s recommendations while appreciating civil society’s role in these efforts. The Commission looks forward to continued engagement with civil society through its newly re-launched thematic subcommittee process, providing a forum for constructive dialogue,” said Commissioner Farzana Haniffa.

In South Asia, the NHRIs from India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka scored on the lower half of the spectrum, whereas Nepal and Pakistan fared better. 

While most NHRIs assessed in the report scored more than 50 per cent in the “Independence” and “Mandate” categories, this did not necessarily translate into action or effective human rights protection. NHRIs should actively realise their mandates and  collaborate with civil society as well as a diverse range of stakeholders to promote and protect human rights. 

“Many NHRIs in Asia still lack independence in implementing their mandates, especially under increasingly authoritarian governments, increasing budget restrictions, and opaque appointment processes. While there are notable initiatives undertaken by some NHRIs, there is a long way to go in making these institutions truly robust and democratic. FORUM-ASIA will continue monitoring NHRIs’ performance, and advocating for their independence and compliance with the Paris Principles,” said Mary Aileen Diez-Bacalso, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.

Call to action

While the GANHRI-SCA has recently reinstated the HRCSL’s “A” status  accreditation, the independence of the Constitutional Council and Commission must be vigilantly protected. 

Although the Council’s powers were initially undermined under the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, they were restored by a subsequent amendment. However, the Council’s composition still requires further formalisation to ensure greater independence and transparency. 

FORUM-ASIA urges the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure the HRCSL’s independence and formalise the participation of civil society in the selection and appointment process of Commissioners.

We urge the government to enable the HRCSL to take disciplinary actions against state officials who do not comply with the Commission’s recommendations. Likewise, we call on the government to either expedite approvals for the HRCSL to hire staff or to amend the HRC Act to allow the Commission to hire staff. We encourage the government to ensure that the Treasury promptly releases funds for the HRCSL.

As for the HRCSL, FORUM-ASIA and ANNI are making the following recommendations:

• Broadly publicise vacancies–ensuring pluralism and civil society involvement in the recruitment process–and establish objective hiring criteria.
• Increase staff recruitments at its offices.
• Prioritise urgent complaints regardless of whether they are high-profile cases or not.
• Publish reports, statistics, and recommendations on time.
• Regularly follow-up complaints.
• Ensure the safety of victims of human rights violations
• Better public and state engagement.
                                                               

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) is a network of 85 member organisations across 23 countries, mainly in Asia. FORUM-ASIA strengthens movements for human rights and sustainable development through research, advocacy, capacity development, and solidarity actions. It has a consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and a consultative relationship with the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights.

The Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI) is a network of Asian non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders working on issues related to National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). ANNI currently has 33 member organisations from 21 countries or territories. ANNI members strengthen the work of Asian NHRIs in promoting human rights and advocating for better compliance with international standards, including the Paris Principles and General Observations of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of NHRIs. FORUM-ASIA has been serving as the ANNI Secretariat since its establishment in 2006.

The Law & Society Trust (LST) is a not-for-profit organisation engaged in legal research, advocacy, and human rights documentation in Sri Lanka. LST uses rights-based strategies to promote and protect human rights, enhance public accountability, and strengthen respect for the rule of law. 

For media inquiries, kindly contact communication@forum-asia.org. 

Download the 2023 ANNI Report on the Performance of NHRIs here. 

Download the full press release here.

This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.

DILI, Timor-Leste–On 27 May 2024, in the spirit of solidarity with the people of Myanmar, the Provedor dos Direitos Humanos e Justiçe/Provedor for Human Rights and Justice (PDHJ) of Timor-Leste hosted the ‘Public Hearing on the Human Rights Crisis in Myanmar.’

The public hearing raised awareness on the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. It also provided a safe space for human rights defenders–of diverse backgrounds–from Myanmar to testify in their own words on the atrocities committed by the junta. The testimonies also showcased their hope for the future of Myanmar as well as their calls to action for the Government of Timor-Leste and the international community.

The PDHJ is Timor-Leste’s national human rights institution (NHRI). NHRIs are independent bodies–created by a country’s law or constitution–which are mandated to promote and protect human rights in compliance with the Paris Principles.

The public hearing was presided by PDHJ Chief Ombudsman Virgilio da Silva Guterres and Deputy Ombudsman Maria Marilia X. C. de O. da Costa. It was co-hosted by  Hugo Fernandes, the Chief Executive Officer of Centro Nacional Chega (CNC).

Courageous voices from the ground

More than three years since the attempted coup in February 2021, Myanmar has become a battleground of people’s resistance–the biggest one in the country’s history –against the military junta.

The people’s resistance movement is gaining ground while the junta is losing strength. During this crucial stage, the international community must offer more solidarity and concrete actions to echo the voices of the people of Myanmar; their quest to bring justice and accountability for the victims of the junta’s atrocities; and their courageous calls for a successful transition and rebuilding of Myanmar’s federal democracy.

The public hearing presented testimonies from seven human rights defenders (HRDs) from Myanmar: 1) a woman human rights defender from Karen State in eastern Myanmar; 2) a former political prisoner; 3) a woman human rights defender from Chin State in western Myanmar bordering India; 4) a youth peace activist from Kachin State in northern Myanmar; 5) a women’s rights activist from Karenni State in eastern Myanmar; 6) a Rohingya youth human rights activist; and 7) a Rohingya human rights advocate for accountability and justice.

In their own words (and language), the HRDs highlighted the harsh living conditions of local communities, women, youth, journalists, political prisoners, and ethnic minorities such as the Rohingya after the military’s coup attempt.

They detailed the human rights violations committed by the junta, which has killed more than 5,000 people and arbitrarily detained more than 26,000 political prisoners, including women and children. These violations also include the imposition of the death penalty, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, abduction, torture, harassment, sexual violence, airstrikes, and the junta’s blockage of humanitarian aid to over 2.7 million internally displaced persons.

All HRDs underscored how the atrocities committed by the junta have violated their human rights, including their right to life, health, education, and sustainable development as well as fundamental freedoms.

The HRDs testified how they–alongside colleagues–are being targeted by the junta for their human rights work and participation in peaceful demonstrations. Such violations have been exacerbated by the junta’s Forced Conscription Law, which is driving tens of thousands of youth to either flee the country or be forced against their will to serve the military.

The testimonies also included inspiring stories of strength, aspirations, resistance, and hope that liberty, human rights and justice would once again prevail in  Myanmar.

The HRDs called on the international community to provide more support–including urgently needed humanitarian assistance–to the people of Myanmar and to take concrete action against the military junta. They also expressed gratitude for Timor-Leste’s–the government and its people–unwavering support and solidarity with the Myanmar people’s fight for democracy and human rights.

 

Responses from the PDHJ

In his remarks, the Chief-Ombudsman of the PDHJ, Mr. Da Silva Guterres emphasised the Timorese people’s ‘principal and historical responsibility’ to protect human rights and support the struggles of the oppressed, including the people of Myanmar.

The PDHJ also reiterated its strategic role as the current Chair of the Southeast Asia National Human Rights Institution Forum (SEANF) to engage with other NHRIs to address the human rights crisis in Myanmar.

During the open dialogue, questions from participants ranged from exploring the specific role of PDHJ in addressing the crisis in Myanmar to the effectiveness of ASEAN regional human rights mechanisms, particularly the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).

The AICHR has been publicly silent on Myanmar’s decades-long situation of grave human rights violations, especially in the past three years since the attempted coup.

‘As the Provedor of Human Rights and Justice of Timor Leste and the Chair of SEANF, we can engage with parliament and government officials both within our country and across ASEAN to address the human rights crisis in Myanmar. This includes highlighting the challenges faced by human rights defenders in Myanmar, which must be prioritised. While Timor Leste aspires to join ASEAN, this should not be a reason for us to overlook the situation in Myanmar,’ said PDHJ Chief Ombudsman Da Silva Guterres.

The PDHJ’s public hearing was supported by CNC, Progressive Voice, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-Burma), and Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID).

#

 

For media inquiries, please contact:

• Khin Ohmar, Progressive Voice, info@progressive-voice.org
• Communication and Media Programme, FORUM-ASIA, communication@forum-asia.org
• Debbie Stothard, ALTSEAN-Burma, debbie@altsean.org
• Gus Miclat, Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID), gus.miclat@iidnet.org

 

 

 

 

This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.

 JAKARTA, Indonesia, 7 Mei 2024 – The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA),  Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (RWI), and Strengthening Human Rights and Peace Research and Education in ASEAN/Southeast Asia (SHAPE-SEA) are calling for the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and ASEAN Environmental Rights Working Group (AERWG) to adopt a significantly more comprehensive declaration on environmental rights.

This call was expressed through a joint consolidation output generated from a regional consultation with various civil society organisations (CSOs) working on environmental rights and its intersectionality conducted on 18 to 19 April 2024 in Jakarta.

The AICHR and AERWC are set to discuss the development of the ASEAN declaration on environmental rights on 6 to 8 May 2024. We urge them to take our concerns and recommendations into careful consideration.

 

Lack of compliance with international human rights standards and principles

The declaration’s current draft does not meet international standards in comparison with existing regional environmental rights instruments, such as the Aarhus Convention and Escazu Agreement.

In addition, the draft does not explicitly require ASEAN Member States to comply with relevant international human rights treaties and other non-binding agreements related to environmental rights. The draft only mentions ASEAN regional standards such as the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, a document that civil society has criticised for falling below international standards.

The draft also lacks affirmation to human rights principles, particularly that  of equality, non-discrimination, transparency, and accountability which  are crucial to guiding any subsequent implementation documents.

 

Lack of clarity and definition on terminology

The draft lacks clear definitions that can be used as a regional standard setting for environmental rights protection. For example, under Article 28 (1), the term ‘large-scale’  refers to activities that require an environmental impact assessment. However, the draft lacks clear parameters for what constitutes ‘large.’ Furthermore, Article 29 uses the phrase ‘relevant to their age and circumstance’ in prescribing children and youths’ right to environmental rights education. This is ambiguous as it may be interpreted to exclude people of certain ages and circumstances from receiving environmental education.

 

Weak obligation from ASEAN Member States and corporations

The draft does not specifically acknowledge the fact that ASEAN Member States are increasingly perpetrating environmental rights violations.

Several articles related to obligations are followed by conditional clauses such as ‘when appropriate’ or ‘with appropriate standards’ which are ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, thereby potentially allowing authoritarian governments to misuse such loopholes.

The document also lacks a sense of urgency, which is essential for communicating the ASEAN Member States’ strong commitment to addressing environmental rights issues in the region.

Likewise, the draft does not extend obligations for environmental rights protection to the private sector.

 

No recognition for Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Rights Defenders

The draft does not recognise protection for environmental rights defenders, indigenous peoples, and affected communities.

For example, Articles 21 and 22 do not include ‘environmental human rights defenders’ or even ‘human rights defenders’ in its section on recognition and protection.

Article 17–which addresses the right of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for activities that are likely to impact surrounding communities–excludes any reference to indigenous peoples’ rights to FPIC. This is ironic given the fact that indigenous people are often involved in land disputes resulting from both the public and private sectors’ arbitrary use of indigenous land.

 

Lack of clarity on the cooperation among ASEAN bodies and member states on implementation

The draft does not include any plans on how ASEAN Member States, ASEAN dialogue partners,  and relevant ASEAN bodies–under the Political-Security Community, the Economic Community, and the Socio-Cultural Community––will cooperate in terms of implementing, monitoring, and reviewing the Declaration and its subsequent action plans.

 

Call to action

For ASEAN to fulfil its commitment to environmental rights–particularly on the right to a safe, clean, and sustainable environment as well as the right to development–it must strengthen the language it uses to prescribe obligations for member states.

In order for the draft declaration to achieve its goal of ensuring maximum protection for environmental rights, there is a need for an extended consultation process with CSOs  and the general public.

Such consultations should be thoroughly inclusive, especially among indigenous peoples who have been historically impacted the most by the inadequate fulfilment of environmental rights.

Given Southeast Asia’s vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters, it is crucial for ASEAN to adopt a stronger, more inclusive, and genuinely participatory regional environmental rights instrument that does not overlook the situation and specific needs of  the most affected individuals and communities.

We call on the AICHR and all ASEAN Member States  to heed to the abovementioned suggestions made by CSOs.

We urge the AICHR and ASEAN Member States to prove that their commitment to fulfil environmental rights goes beyond statements. To do this, they must create a significantly more comprehensive declaration.

 

---

For the PDF version of this press release, click here

For the joint consolidation output, click here

This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.

(BANGKOK, Thailand, 3 May 2024)–Advocates came together to voice their concerns regarding Hong Kong’s new Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), also known as ‘Article 23,’ urging the international community to consolidate efforts to publicly voice opposition against the passage of the new law and to convey their concerns to both the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments.

On 2 May 2024, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Asia Democracy Network, and Lady Liberty Hong Kong co-organised a webinar dissecting Article 23.

Triggering significant domestic and international alarm, Hong Kong legislators unanimously approved Article 23 on 19 March 2024 under the pretext of strengthening the ‘legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region  to safeguard national security.’ (READ: How Article 23 tramples on fundamental freedoms)

How Article 23 impacts press freedom

Among the webinar speakers was Aleksandra Bielakowska of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), who has witnessed the downfall of Hong Kong’s press freedom over the past four years.

‘The impact on press freedom and information in the region following the introduction of the National Security Law (NSL) since 2020 is quite immense. Such a downfall has not been observable in any other country around the world,’  said Bielakowska.

‘Hong Kong ranks 135th out of 180 in RSF’s 2024 World Press Freedom Index, having plummeted down from 18th place in the span of two decades. So, the scale of the downfall of freedom is not comparable to any other places,’ Bielakowska continued.

‘The journalists have not only been harassed with NSL charges but also through other means. For example, RSF observed this with Ronson Chan, the chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) who was found guilty of allegedly obstructing a police officer while reporting in September 2022,’ Bielakowska added. In 2023, Chan was sentenced to five days in prison before being granted bail pending appeal.

‘I am not able to gauge the impact of Article 23 on journalists in the region as it has only been one month. However, there were many media outlets opened after the closure of Apple Daily and Stand News and I had the chance to meet with them and see the problems they were facing. They are still trying to carry out their work, which gives hope that everything’s not lost,’ said Bielakowska.

What can the international community do now

Meanwhile, Simon Henderson, an international human rights lawyer, stressed how the NSL has radically impacted Hong Kong’s political, societal, and legal systems. Such negative impacts were further exacerbated by the enactment of Article 23.

‘Several provisions of the SNSO breach Hong Kong’s international human rights law obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ said Henderson, ‘This is also the view of United Nations Special Rapporteurs in their communication with the Hong Kong Government. It violates rights such as freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom from arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, freedom of movement, the right of privacy, the right to conduct and participation in public affairs supposedly protected under Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights.’

‘The credibility of Hong Kong’s legal system has drastically fallen and it should no longer be spoken about in the same company or held in the same esteem as its previously acknowledged peers, such as the UK, US and Australia. It is now used to systematically target civil society organisations and human rights defenders,’ Henderson explained.

In addition, Henderson suggested creating better engagements with international legal associations; expanding the space for engagement between civil society and UN human rights mechanisms; adding support for trial monitoring; urging increased coordinated engagement  from states such as UK, US, Canada and Australia whose are consistently cited by the Hong Kong government as models and justification for the SNSO including the use of targeted sanctions; and calling for the resignation of foreign judges who are non-permanent members of the Court of Final Appeal, as they have long since past their utility and their continued presence provides legitimacy for the ongoing repression of human rights defenders.

 

Journalists need support

Shibani Mahtani, an international investigative correspondent for Washington Post, emphasised how ‘conducting deep dive investigative journalism that pushes the boundaries and goes beyond mere news reportage in Hong Kong is extremely challenging today.’

‘The consequences are getting higher and higher. The reality of navigating the complex system and landscape–starting with the NSL, compounded with the introduction of Article 23–is very real for people in our profession,’ said Mahtani.

‘Several countries in Asia are not particularly warm and fuzzy towards journalists but even in this context, what makes Hong Kong particularly difficult is the lack of clarity regarding the red line around freedom of expression. Especially after the introduction of Article 23, nobody knows when the line will be crossed until it’s crossed,’ Mahtani continued.

Mahtani also noted how the process of applying for visas and permanent residences among journalists has become increasingly difficult. ‘All this leads to a sense of self-censorship in pursuing stories that push the boundaries of what the Hong Kong Government has set up,’ Mahtani explained, ‘Making stories about Hong Kong is becoming harder and harder. It is necessary to find people outside Hong Kong as there is a risk of putting the source in danger. Covering thematic issues on Hong Kong, such as land grabbing and environmental issues, has diminished following the introduction of both laws.’

‘The most tragic aspect of Article 23 is that it has made funding and donations for organisations very difficult. After the passage of the NSL in 2020, many organisations calibrated and adjusted themselves. However, with the introduction of Article 23, new layers of complexity, more restrictions, and increased difficulty will impede them from carrying out their work, said Mahtani.

Issuing statements is no longer enough, according to the speakers. Instead, there is an urgent need for coordinated action among democracies. Furthermore, they stressed the importance of documenting the impacts of Article 23 on people’s fundamental rights and freedoms. To do this, there is a need to support activists, independent media outlets, and journalists in and outside of Hong Kong who are courageously shedding light on what is really going on under Article 23.

About the organisers:

• The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) is a Bangkok-based regional network of 85 member organisations across 23 Asian countries, with consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and consultative relationship with the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. FORUM-ASIA works to strengthen movements for human rights and sustainable development through research, advocacy, capacity-development and solidarity actions in Asia and beyond. It has sub-regional offices in Geneva, Jakarta, and Kathmandu.

• The Asia Democracy Network (ADN) is a civil society led multi-stakeholder platform dedicated to bringing all aspects of society in Asia together to promote and defend democracy and human rights as a collective. ADN is a network of networks consisting of members that are regional networks that work on diverse themes under the umbrella of democracy. We have 11 network members and over 300 national members. As a network, we aim to promote democratic unity, solidarity, and cultivate the generation of advocates to sustain the democracy movement.

• Lady Liberty Hong Kong (LLHK) is a non-profit organisation committed to advocating for human rights and democracy through the transformative power of art and media. Founded in Hong Kong in 2019 and now headquartered in Tokyo, LLHK leverages artistic expression and strategic media engagement to spotlight issues of freedom, democracy, and human rights in Hong Kong and across East Asia. LLHK’s approach includes international art exhibitions, public advocacy campaigns, media collaborations, and educational initiatives, all designed to cultivate a broader awareness of human rights issues and inspire action in support of democratic values worldwide.

For further information, please contact FORUM-ASIA’s East Asia and ASEAN Programme at ea-asean@forum-asia.org

For media inquiries, kindly contact:

• FORUM-ASIA’s Communications and Media Programme atcommunication@forum-asia.org
• Asia Democracy Network (ADN) at adn@adnasia.org
• Lady Liberty Hong Kong at contact@ladylibertyhongkong.com

This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.

8 April 2024

The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Athan, RW Welfare Society, and Progressive Voice welcome the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar. While the adoption of the resolution by consensus represents an important step in further cementing the Myanmar military’s lack of legitimacy, the resolution falls short in key areas in addressing the ongoing atrocities and ensuring justice and accountability in Myanmar.

The resolution, adopted by consensus at the end of the 55^th regular session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) on 4 April 2024, unequivocally condemns the military junta’s escalating violence against civilians and its increasing violations of international law, committed with blanket impunity. The HRC’s adoption of a new resolution on Myanmar deals a resounding blow to the illegal Myanmar military junta, putting on full display the world’s condemnation of its terror campaign against the people of Myanmar.

It leaves no doubt that the military junta has absolutely no international legitimacy and is the root cause of Myanmar’s intensifying human rights and humanitarian crisis.

The resolution maintains the ongoing crisis in Myanmar high on the Council’s agenda. It ensures that the Council is regularly informed of the developments in the country by the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur. In particular, its request that the High Commissioner report on “pathways to fulfil the people of Myanmar’s aspirations for human rights protection, accountability, democracy and a civilian government” is a welcome step. This presents a crucial opportunity for the UN system as a whole to truly demonstrate its respect for the wishes and efforts of Myanmar people to establish federal democracy, and ensure the protection of human rights, and justice and accountability.

Shortcomings in the Resolution

The resolution, however, falls dangerously short yet again in several key areas.

Transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment: While the resolution rightly recognizes the serious human rights and humanitarian implications of the junta’s atrocity crimes, in particular the increasing airstrikes facilitated by “sale, diversion and unregulated or illicit transfers of arms and jet fuel,” it fails to recognize the need for a comprehensive global arms embargo or sanctions on aviation fuel.

It merely calls on states to “cease the illicit transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment […] as well as to refrain from […] the export, sale or transfer of jet fuel, surveillance goods and technologies and less-lethal weapons.”

The failure to explicitly call for a comprehensive embargo on arms and sanctions on aviation fuel to Myanmar represents a failure by the Council to fully respect the overwhelming demands of Myanmar’s peoples to the international community, which is to neutralize the junta by ending its capacity to bomb civilian communities across the country.

The reality is that any transfer, sale, or diversion of arms, munitions, and other military equipment to the military junta likely amounts to aiding and abetting its commission of war crimes and other crimes under international law. This means that all sales, transfers, and diversions of arms, munitions and other military equipment to the Myanmar military are illicit, and therefore must stop immediately.

ASEAN: Of additional concern is the resolution’s expression of “full support for the central role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations” (ASEAN). ASEAN’s efforts over the past three years—including its so-called Five-Point Consensus (5PC) and attempts at “inclusive dialogue”—have been consistently ineffective and misguided. It has continually failed to recognize and address the Myanmar military as the root cause of the crisis, while neglecting the will, aspirations, efforts, and sacrifices of the Myanmar people to establish an inclusive, peaceful federal democratic Myanmar. Still today, ASEAN’s approach to addressing the crisis lacks the Myanmar people’s consent.

The people of Myanmar cannot afford to wait indefinitely for ASEAN to implement the 5PC. As primary stakeholders in the future of their own country, the people of Myanmar have a right to know about ASEAN’s plans. ASEAN and the UN are accountable to the people of Myanmar regarding matters of their own country.

Continuing to rely exclusively on ASEAN, despite the indisputable failure of its efforts over the past three years, will only prolong the junta’s escalating atrocities. This obliges the UN and the international community as a whole to end its ineffective reliance on ASEAN and to assume collective responsibility and leadership in addressing Myanmar’s crisis.

Calls to Action

Three years since the military’s attempted coup, the will of the Myanmar people remains strong, as their steadfast democratic resistance movement continues its tireless efforts to dismantle the military junta and build an inclusive federal democracy and sustainable peace from the ground up.

The Council must mobilize Member States to heed the unwavering calls of the people of Myanmar to fully ban the military junta’s access to arms and aviation fuel once and for all, and actualize justice and accountability through all possible avenues. There cannot be a true end to the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Myanmar unless and until the military is held accountable under international law. We call on the Council to urge UN Member States—particularly those of the Security Council—to refer the situation in Myanmar as a whole to the International Criminal Court under Article 14 of the Rome Statute.

For further information, please contact:

• FORUM-ASIA; communication@forum-asia.org
• Razia Sultana, RW Welfare Society; rowwsbd@gmail.com
• Zee Pe, Athan; info@athanmm.org
• Khin Ohmar, Progressive Voice; info@progressive-voice.org

This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.