Time for a new approach to Myanmar?

http://csr-asia.com/weekly_detail.php?id=11628

by Richard Welford rwelford@csr-asia.com

Last week, around the ASEAN Summit, the organisation was attacked by numerous NGOs and journalists for its lack of action in Myanmar. Many civil society groups criticized ASEAN over its abysmal human rights record. It stands accused of protecting a military dictatorship in Myanmar and failing to address rampant disease and poverty. But it is not only the ASEAN countries that are being blamed for a deteriorating situation in Myanmar. Human rights abuses are worsening and activists have also highlighted the role of China, India and Russia, powerful nations, who are said to support the stability of the military junta.


In a recent report, Human Rights Watch (HRW) points out that the forced return at sea of boats containing ethnic Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, leading to hundreds of deaths, was proof of the need for a regional solution to Myanmar.



HRW says a significant step to ensure binding commitment of the entire region would be for all ASEAN member states to ratify the 1951 Refugees Convention and its 1967 Protocol without delay. The plight of the Rohingya was exacerbated by Thailand's actions in pushing them back out to sea, should be a wake-up call for ASEAN to change its approach in dealing with refugees and migrants, according to HRW.


In many cases, bilateral cooperation between ASEAN countries has failed to establish adequate protection for vulnerable migrant populations. Regional cooperation and leadership from ASEAN can help to ensure minimum standards across the region that will avoid an unhealthy race to the bottom, as countries compete for jobs in a volatile economic climate. Both Malaysia and Thailand have failed to investigate allegations of collusion between government officials and Myanmar-linked trafficking gangs. In 2008, Myanmar migrants told HRW of being sold to criminal gangs.


In the meantime, Myamar's military government continues to deny its citizens basic freedoms, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly. The Myanmar military continues to violate the rights of civilians in ethnic conflict areas by committing extrajudicial killings, using forced labour, and through land confiscation without due process, often in preparation for mega-infrastructure projects of foreign companies. But are those companies part of the problem or part of the solution? If there is a need for a new approach to Myanmar, to what extent should it include the businesses already operating there?


Interestingly, the new administration in the United States has signaled that it wants Southeast Asian countries to press for reform, openness and political progress in Myanmar. It is calling for a new approach toward the military-ruled country because nothing much has worked to date. But at least the US now recognizes that whatever the solution, it needs to be a regional one and it has called on Myanmar’s neighbours to present ideas on how they can cooperate to bring about change and to use their contacts and access that they have in the country to encourage new thinking and reform, increased openness and political progress. Should that new thinking include the private sector?


The US has gradually tightened sanctions on the generals who have ruled the Myanmar for more than four decades to little avail. There is consensus amongst many that sanctions have had a negative impact on the country’s population in general, whilst actually having rather little impact on the governing elite. There is now an acknowledgement in the US administration that neither sanctions nor ASEAN's non-interference approach has worked and there is now a need for new thinking on Myanmar policy. For some time, we at CSR Asia have been advocating that whatever solutions are considered in Myanmar must include some consideration of the international business community.


The new US stance certainly does not mean it can or will walk away from the Myanmar issue, however. Within Asia, there is also some recognition that if there is going to be any change in international policy which will make a difference, it's going to have to involve the US. In part, for the Myanmar government, the U.S. holds out what they want which is international acceptability and respect, and an end to its pariah status. But the US will be encouraging ASEAN to flex its muscle more. ASEAN should be in the forefront of the struggle for human rights in Myanmar although there is also a role for the US and the EU. But the US will also have to get some leverage from India and China if it is to make a real difference.


In the past, the US has tried to exert some pressure through the United Nations as well as ASEAN nations. But China, Russia and India, all with economic and strategic interests in Myanmar, have blocked such moves while ASEAN's policy of noninterference has hindered reform in Myanmar. Much of those strategic interests relate to a whole range of resources that Myanmar has in abundance and which, through illegal trade, has kept the elite in a lavish lifestyle.


Analysts foresee more carefully crafted US sanctions, greater cooperation with the United Nations and other agencies to forge a common front on Myanmar, and trying to convince China to exert influence on its neighbour. But there is still inadequate debate about the role of businesses within Myanmar and the potential leverage that new investment (ethically targeted) might create within the country.


Many would like to see much swifter and much more direct action within Myanmar and a greater role for ASEAN in dealing with the consequences of human rights abuses there. ASEAN needs to address the dire human rights situation in Myanmar, improve treatment of refugees and asylum seekers from the country, and strengthen protection for migrants. HRW has said that these issues must be a priority for the new ASEAN human rights body, which was to be discussed at the ASEAN Summit in Thailand last weekend. Human Rights Watch said that ASEAN's human rights body should independently investigate and report on human rights conditions in member countries.


But that may still not be enough and with the US now calling for some new thinking and reform, perhaps now is the time to forget the politics of sanctions and actually leverage change though engagement rather than isolation. Little has worked yet, so surely there is a need for some thinking about a new approach.


So what of business? Should it be forced to stay away, encouraged to stay away or encouraged to offer the Myanmar government new investment opportunities in exchange for human rights improvements? Would any business trust the promises that the military rulers might make in such circumstances however? Promises to end forced labour, for example, have been made in the past, but the practice continues.


So many of us end up asking what the solution might be and what needs to change. There is no doubt that Myanmar’s neighbours have a role to play but have not done so to date preferring to uphold their policy of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs. There seems little end to this in sight. The bottom line is that there seems little incentive for many of Myanmar’s border countries to intervene.


So are there economic incentives and good business reasons for thinking that the business sector might provide some solutions? I think yes. However, it seems to me that governments still have a strong role to play in encouraging companies investing in Myanmar to be more transparent and accountable. Why is it that some countries have tough company laws to ensure that local laws are obeyed but seem to turn a blind eye to abuses in Myanmar and elsewhere?


In the case of Myanmar there is a strong case for China and ASEAN countries to be doing more. If they could agree on regional codes of conduct governing the ethical behaviour of companies investing overseas we might start to see the beginnings of some solutions.


I have long been of the view, that divestment in Myanmar is not going to be the long term solution but that those businesses now in Myanmar and those considering investing in the future have a role to play through policies and systems that demonstrate transparency and accountability.


Some may argue that mixing politics with economics is not the nature of the Asian region or the normal behaviour of its governments. Well, so be it. But there are very good economic reasons to ensure that investments are ethical and abide by international best practices.


Firstly, honest business is always the best business. I am always reminded that the best business deals need no contracts because everyone benefits. But doing business in an environment that is uncertain and corrupt is never going to produce high quality investments or the best returns. Certainty leads to security and long term profitability, not dodgy deals behind closed doors. Honest business is accountable and transparent.


Secondly, increasing numbers of the relatively unknown (often Chinese ad India) companies now in Myanmar are going to be the new brand names of the future. Histories of companies that include the abuse of human rights and complicity in a despot junta do have the tendency to pop up and embarrass you when you least expect it.


Thirdly, ASEAN countries and China would do well to remind themselves that they expect foreign investors into their countries to obey local laws and lead to economic benefits for the country. So why should the same not apply in other countries such as Myanmar? Are we seeing a degree of double standards from countries that expect ethics at home but allow exploitation abroad?


I see no option but to work with companies now in Myanmar and to remind them of their ethical and moral responsibilities. Sanctions and boycotts have not worked. I realize that that a new ethical agenda for the region is a huge task and it will require will on the part of regional governments. But a starting point is to demand more accountability from the companies already operating in Myanmar and for governments to put pressure on then to ensure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses. In addition to this, any (much needed) new investment from companies should also be transparent and based on deals that deliver human rights improvements.


The private sector des have a role to play and that has to be part of any new solution in Myanmar. ■