Does the Security Council really want to take action against Myanmar junta?
Army and police have jointly killed more than 500 people including women and children in the country so far in the uprising against the military coup
That old teachings have been proved to be right again. China, Russia, India (non-permanent member), and Vietnam took the same position on Myanmar in the long debate in the United Nations Security Council. Vietnam is currently the president of the Security Council. Vietnam's diplomat Dang Dinh Quy, the current president of the Security Council, held a press conference on 1 April to discuss the matter.
In 2020, when Aung San Suu Kyi won a landslide victory in the election, it became clear that the junta would not accept the results. Because Aung San Suu Kyi's election manifesto called for a change in the constitution that the junta had enacted. According to the constitution, the army will represent 25 percent of the seats in parliament.
There is no constitution like this anywhere in the world. Here the army is a direct part of the constitution. Why would the army let that be changed? As a result, the army seized power as per their old custom.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
About 89% of the population in Myanmar are Buddhists- the religion of peace and non-violence. The Bamar community, one of the sects of Buddhism, control the country. The history of this country is a complex one. The country has been in turmoil for a long time.
Aung San Suu Kyi's father, General Aung San, was killed just nine months before the end of British colonial rule due to sectarian conflict. This sectarian conflict persisted in Myanmar even before the British occupation. In various parts of the vast territory of Myanmar, various kings were engaged in disputes among themselves.
More than fifty different communities are living in this territory. Of which 12 to 15 are the major powers. They were involved in ethnic conflicts even after the British left the country.
In its aftermath, the current military junta has carried out airstrikes on rebel groups in their own country after coming to power in a coup. Because the army has also been directly attacked by this rebel group several times already.
Army and police have jointly killed more than 500 people including women and children in the country so far in the uprising against the military coup. Nowhere else has there been such a large number of murders of women and children in recent times.
One of the proposals raised in the UN Security Council was to call it murder. The word was killing. China objected to the word killing and it was then changed to death. Countries like China, Russia and India have indirectly supported Myanmar's killings for economic gain.
As the countries opposed the sanctions imposed by the Security Council, the military is launching new attacks on the unarmed people in the country. And even after so many killings, people are still protesting against the military rule.
The question is how did China, Russia and India reach the same position on Myanmar?
Extreme diplomatic tensions are raging between China and India over Ladakh. Despite this, both countries have adopted a similar approach in plundering Myanmar's resources. That's why they are supporting the killings of general people in Myanmar by the junta. Otherwise, a strong resolution against Myanmar would have been raised in the Security Council, and even the issue of economic sanction would have come up in line with the US resolution.
However, the day before yesterday, India abruptly changed its position and the Indian Foreign Ministry condemned the killings in Myanmar. This is a contradictory position of India. India's move is inconsistent with the Security Council's position. We have to think about whether this position of India is to comply with the interests of maintaining friendly relations with the United States.
There is another reason behind supporting the Myanmar incident. The allegation of genocide has been discussed around the world for India's intervention in Kashmir, China's intervention in Xinjiang, and Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Crimea and Georgia. That is probably why they are legitimising Myanmar's killings.
The language they used at the press conference is not enough to take a position against Myanmar. They could not agree on Myanmar. It is hard to accept for people with common sense that China can take Myanmar's side even after such a massacre.
India claims itself to be the largest democracy in the world but its position in the Security Council and support for China and Russia regarding the situation in Myanmar is unacceptable. As a result of this support, there is no reason for Myanmar to end its military rule in the future. Army rule will be as long as in the past. In 2015, after a long time, the military rule in Myanmar had come to an end.
After returning to power, General Min Aung Hlaing, 64, has taken some people from Myanmar's communities to his side. That is why some people are supporting this coup.
Being unable to take action against Myanmar underscores the failure of the United Nations. There have been fears that the UN will lose its effectiveness in the future. As the authority of the UN rests with these five regulatory powers, they are the ones who have the final say. They take decisions in case of any crisis in the world not only because of their economic power but also because of their military power.
With that in mind, they are united in the nuclear disarmament treaty and its implementation to maintain control all over the world. The case of Iran proves so. Before the election, Joe Biden announced that the United States would return to the Iran nuclear deal by lifting economic sanctions. Three months after the election, nothing new has been heard from Joe Biden. Joe Biden's America has not yet returned to that nuclear deal. New excuses are being made.
Joe Biden's team says the rules that Iran followed during the deal need to be reinstated, then the Americans will return to the deal and lift US sanctions. In this way, the five powerful countries are using the small countries of the world for their benefit.
The United States has continued economic sanctions to control Iran's oil market. The normal entry of Iranian oil into the international market will put pressure on the oil market, which Saudi Arabia and the United States do not want, all of which are part of world geopolitics.
