Although results have yet to be confirmed, Sunday’s election in Myanmar appears to be headed to transferring power to Nobel Peace Laureate and former political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition National League for Democracy. The elections marked the first democratic ballot after nearly 50 years of military rule. Although final results are still more than a week away, Suu Kyi’s party was already won 256 of the 299 seats declared and the military has already declared it has lost more seats than it has won.
The constitution of Myanmar, developed by the country’s military government in preparation for the transition to democracy, still places considerable limits on the new government. Suu Kyi will be a member of the parliament but is ineligible to serve as the country’s president. Further, the military retains control of key government operations, including the Ministries of Defense, Interior, and Foreign Affairs. It is also guaranteed at least 25 percent of the seats in parliament. Nevertheless, there have been high expectations that the election represents a significant step forward in the democratization of Myanmar.
What do you think? What comes next in Myanmar’s democratization? Will the process continue or will it suffer setbacks as the nation moves forward? Why? And what lessons, if any, does Myanmar hold for other countries transitioning to democracy?
As the Rohingya refugee crisis in Southeast Asia intensifies, regional actors are moving slowly to address the issue. Thousands of migrants remain stranded at sea as other governments (primarily Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia) refuse to permit them entry into their countries. An additional 100,000 Rohingya live in camps in Myanmar as internally displaced persons. And despite pleas from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, regional governments are refusing to accept the refugees, leading some to declare that a humanitarian disaster is at hand.
The Rohingya are an ethnic minority who practice Islam and historically lived in northern Myanmar. The population historically presented a threat to the professed identity of the government of Myanmar, which justifies its military rule through a mixture of Burmese nationalism and Theravada Buddhism. The government stripped the Rohingya of citizenship in the early 1980s and are barred by law from having more than two children. Despite these restrictive measures, the government of Myanmar officially does not recognize the Rohingya as a population, and this week stated it would not attend a regional conference to address the ongoing crisis if the word “Rohingya” is mentioned at the conference.
What do you think? What should be done to address the refugee crisis? What obligation, if any, do regional actors have to accept Rohingya migrants? What obligations, if any, do non-regional actors like the United States or the European Union, have? Is Ban Ki-moon correct that international law establishes “the obligation of rescue at sea” and therefore implies governments in the region should accept Rohingya refugees? Why?