Pages

▼

Saturday, April 3, 2021

Politics and the English Language: Security Council Regurgitates the Same Words as the Burmese Junta Goes on a Killing Spree

United Nations Statement Council, illustration by Kenneth Wong

George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" is an indictment against insincere, pretentious writing, found in academic journals and political pamphlets, among others. Written in 1946, the year of the first United Nations Security Council meeting, the essay shows how, when you strip away the layers of embellishments, catchphrases, and euphemisms, you see certain political texts for what they truly are: the defense of the indefensible. 

Defenseless villagers are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets. this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers ... Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. (The Orwell Reader, Harcourt Brace & Co., 1984, P 363)

The UN Security Council's statements on the coup in Burma and the subsequent crisis are not the defense of the indefensible. Rather, they are a disguise to hide the failure to confront and check the junta that has made a brash assault against democracy and human rights. In the coming days and weeks, this will certainly have ramifications in more lives lost--protesters' lives. 

First Response (3 days after the coup)

On February 4, the Security Council issued its first statement through Barbara Woodward (UK), Council President. Among other things, Council members

  • expressed deep concern at the declaration of the state of emergency imposed in Burma by the military;
  • called for the immediate release of all those detained;
  • emphasized the need for the continued support of the democratic transition in Myanmar;
  • stressed the need to uphold democratic institutions and processes, refrain from violence and fully respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law;
  • encouraged the pursuance of dialogue and reconciliation in accordance with the will and interests of the people of Burma.
Note that the words coup and condemn were dropped due to objections from China and Russia.

Second Response (37 days after the coup, 60+ killed, 2,000+ arrested)

On March 10, the Security Council spoke for the second time, with a presidential statement. Council members: 

  • reiterated its deep concern about developments in Burma, following the state of emergency imposed by the Military;
  • called for the immediate release of all those detained arbitrarily;
  • expressed continued support for the democratic transition in Burma;
  • stressed the need to uphold democratic institutions and processes, refrain from violence, and fully respect human rights and the rule of law;
  • called on all parties to exercise utmost restraint and seek a peaceful solution through constructive dialogue and practical reconciliation.
What's new was, the members also
  • strongly condemned the violence against peaceful protesters;
  • expressed deep concern over restrictions against medical personnel, civil society, labor union members, journalists, and media workers.
Note that
  • The statement "strongly condemned the violence against peaceful protesters" did not mention who the perpetrator was;
  • The "call on all parties to exercise utmost restraint" suggested both the protesters and the security forces were engaging in acts of violence. But reports from reputable news outlets show the police and soldiers were responsible for most, if not all, acts of violence.
  • There was no mention of sanction or arms embargo.

Third Response (59 days after the coup, 540+ killed, 2,700+ arrested)

On April 1 (April Fools' Day), the Security Council spoke for the third time with a press statement. Council members

  • expressed deep concern at the rapidly deteriorating situation;
  • reiterated their call on the military to exercise utmost restraint;
  • reiterated the need to fully respect human rights and to pursue dialogue;
  • called again for the immediate release of all detainees;
  • called on all sides to refrain from violence.
What's new was, the members
  • strongly condemned the use of violence against peaceful protestors and the deaths of hundreds of civilians, including women and children;
  • stressed that they continued to monitor the situation closely and would remain actively seized of the matter.
Note that
  • At last, the Council specifically "called on the military to exercise utmost restraint," but still could not use the word coup or condemn the coup itself;
  • It again "called on all sides to refrain from violence," despite overwhelming evidence the military had been responsible for most, if not all, the bloodshed;
  • It did condemn the violence against peaceful protesters, but avoided pointing the finger at the military as the perpetrator. 
  • There was no mention of sanction or arms embargo.

An Indefensible Failure

In the 60 days since it first usurped power, Burma's military junta has killed 550, detained 2,600. Put another way, the military has been killing on average nine people per day, and arresting 43 per day. 

United Nations Special Envoy on Myanmar Christine Schraner Burgener has warned, "a bloodbath is imminent" and urged the Council to consider "potentially significant action." UN Special Rapporteur Thomas Andrews has recommended concrete actions to the Council, including stopping the flow of revenue to the junta's coffers and outlawing the export of arms to the Burmese military. The Council's repeated inability to act or even consider punitive actions in the face of such dire warnings is in itself reprehensible and indefensible.

Time to Look Beyond the Security Council

The Council statements' diluted language is obviously the outcome of China's staunch refusal to agree to stronger language. Whatever the cause might be, if the 15-member Council cannot even muster sufficiently robust language to denounce the junta after three meetings, it's doubtful it will ever reach consensus in time to take the much needed action to protect the vulnerable people of Burma. 

As an international body, the Council is stronger when it speaks with a unified voice or takes collective action. On the other hand, if the price of unity is inaction and further delays, then member states that still believe in democracy and human rights must build a coalition outside the framework of the UN Security Council and start taking immediate actions on their own to exert pressure on the Burmese junta. Nobody needs permission from the Council to do the right thing. 

 

at

No comments:

Post a Comment