The Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, is currently on tour in Burma. According to following ABC report, she 'had raised' human rights issues with U Thein Sein government.
When Australian Government is making visit at such a ministerial level, all other quarters no doubt may have their hope raised for the support and initiative regarding Burma's democratic transition and human rights.
My observation, though, the Australian Foreign minister is making a visit to Burma not primarily to help Burmese people, but to help itself. Most likely, she is going to Burma to raise issues about the boatpeople. The press and governments will usually described this issue as 'human smuggling trade' etc. etc.
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT'S OVERRIDING AGENDA
Since coming into power late last year, this Australian Liberal Government which led by PM Tony Abbott only had one and the only overriding issue in its agenda: i.e. to stop & remove asylum seekers arriving by boat. Nobody have any surprise about this because the Liberal Party had taken the staunch anti-refugee and right-wing racist agendas since John Howards era.
What surprised me, however, was the blatant way in which the Government try to discard existing laws and practices regarding refugees. As soon as it taken the office, the Government had stopped issuing information about the boat-arrivals. Consequently, the boatpeople issue was taken out of public scrutiny and, effectively, it was kept out of the hands off human rights advocates.
CREATION OF CLIENT STATES
On tackling the issues of undocumented asylum-seekers, the Australian Government would need genuine regional cooperation. However, the current Australian government is lacking its diplomatic tenacity. When a government shows flagarent disregard for international laws, no-other government can be expected to come to cooperate with due respect on this issue. Thus, the Australian Government had resorted to a quick-fix with the creation of client states. The government had since initiated bi-lateral agreements on asylum related issues with Sri Lanka, Cambodia and few other Pacific Island nations.
Such creation of client states, unfortunately, were not based on mutual respects. Given the ideology and calibre of present Liberal crowd, these were based on 'dangling a carrot'. Being a mid-power within the region, when the Australian government dangle a 'carrot', some client governments will behave like the 'little rabbits' and begin praising to their 'Lord'. Surely, that is what happened with Sri Lanka and Cambodia.
Creating a client state to dump asylum-seekers, of course, is not limited to the current Liberal Government. It is the previous Labor Government of Kevin Rudd which enacted refugee resettlement deal with Papua New Guinea in its last days in the office. According to that deal, any boatpeople who found to be genuine refugee by Australia will be sent to PNG for permanent resettlement. That initiative, again, was not a genuine attempt to solve the problem; but rather to create a 'spin' so as to deflect would-be human smugglers.
Australia currently have 30,000 boatpeople who are waiting to be processed. They are not in detention but languishing in the community. As of recent, the Government's attempt to limit the issuing of permanent protection visa was struck-down by the High Court. With recent few boat arrivals, the government looks even more desperate: almost childish desperation to 'prove' that the governmet's border protection policies are working.
Julie Bishop's current visit to Burma must be viewed against this background. Any Australian support for transition to democracy in Burma is, of course, to be welcomed. However, I would advise against any Burmese government -- 'military' or 'pseudo-military' or 'genuine-democratic' -- signing up to become a 'client state' of Australia especially in relation to asylum-seeker issues. Simply put, "Don't ever become a Burmese Rabbit".
WHAT'S IN STORE FOR AUSTRALIA
Despite current Australian Government's "strong" border protection policy, there are quite a few indicators that the boat arrivals may increase. Firstly, the change of leadership in Indonesia which may affect in this regards. In fact, there are still elements in Indonesia who were unhappy about the Howard Liberal Government's East Timor policy. The increase in boat arrivals that lead up to 2003 can be understood in this context.
Other factors like an outbreak of refugee crisis, such as that of Chinese crackdown on Uyghur minorities, can have impact on boat arrivals. Even our own Rohingyas, whos number estimated to be more than 1,000 in Indonesia, can cause an influx if not being properly mitigated.
The winding-down of UN protection can also cause the influx. The increase of Tamil boat arrivals in last few year is an example. For our own Burma's ethnic minorities and the Rohingyas who are in Malaysia, such winding down may necessarily come after 2015. We would better be on the watch out.
U Ne Oo.
WHAT BISHOP MUST DO IN BURMA
David Scott Mathieson is a senior researcher in the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch.
When Julie Bishop arrives in Burma this week for her first visit as Australia’s foreign minister, she may be hoping to find a model for peaceful democratic transition from decades of military rule. Instead, she’ll find a shaky, uneven reform process led by a quasi-civilian government that’s already showing deep stress fractures.
The top-down reform process led by the former army general turned President, U Thein Sein, was initially welcomed for its surprising vigour: the release of political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi, a major overhaul of the legal system, a rigorous parliamentary structure (albeit one held hostage by a military quota) and the signing of more than 15 ceasefire agreements with ethnic rebels after six decades of civil war. The announcements were swiftly followed by an increase in international aid and investment, the lifting of sanctions, and high-profile visits by almost every key world leader.
Yet initial optimism is quickly fading as the Burmese government back pedals on its early promises. Burma’s media is being intimidated, the country’s military is muscling in on delicate peace negotiations, widespread land grabs are fueling rural discontent, legal curbs have been placed on peaceful assembly and association, and there is continued fighting in the north between the Burmese army and ethnic rebels, despite a ceasefire.
The government and military are being increasingly obtuse on amending clauses in the constitution that prohibit Suu Kyi’s eligibility to be president and, crucially, have ignored demands from certain ethnic groups for greater autonomy. Everything points to a showdown between the government and Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, a confrontation that can severely destabilise Burma ahead of next year's national elections.
More disturbingly, both Buddhist ultra-nationalism and anti-Islamic hate speech are on the rise, emboldened by prominent monks who urge the government to restrict inter-faith marriage, religious conversions, family planning and polygamy, all of which will adversely affect Burma’s sizeable Muslim minority.
In western Burma, the persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority has intensified following communal clashes in 2012 that killed hundreds and forced 180,000 people from their homes. They now live in wretched conditions, crammed into camps where the Burmese authorities are able to regulate foreign aid sent to them. A flawed nationwide census in March, which Australia helped to fund, cynically excluded the Rohingya.
Bishop is flying into a tougher bilateral relationship than one would have forecast a year ago.
Australia’s relations with Burma have generally balanced practical engagement for democratic change with consistent criticism of the appalling human rights abuses committed during military rule. Australia has been a generous aid donor, providing assistance to refugees on the Thai-Burma border, resettling thousands of long-term refugees in Australia, and helping fund the country’s health and education sectors, so degraded after decades of inept military governance.
But as a generous donor and investor, Bishop should tell Thein Sein his bid to reform Burma will be derailed unless he addresses several key rights issues.
Her first message needs to be that ongoing mistreatment of the stateless Rohingya is unacceptable. Of course, Australia’s own appalling record on asylum seekers will render these concerns hypocritical, so Bishop should remind Burma that its repression of the Rohingya is fuelling a growing exodus that’s affecting the whole region: 86,000 Rohingya have fled to Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia since 2012.
The Australian government has been far too timid on the Rohingya issue to date: when Immigration Minister Scott Morrison went to the country in February he visited camps, but failed to make any public statements calling on Burma to address the abuses from which the Rohingya are fleeing.
Bishop has said women’s empowerment will be a key priority of her visit. As such, she should raise concerns over proposed religious laws, especially a draft marriage bill that will restrict interfaith marriage. Under the proposed law, non-Buddhists who fail to convert to Buddhism before marrying a Buddhist, or don’t seek written consent from the parents of the bride, face a 10-year prison term. Bishop should make it clear that such laws are not only discriminatory, but will further inflame inter-communal hatred.
Australia’s aid package also includes assistance to Burma’s lucrative yet opaque and corrupt mining sector, which has bred a litany of concerns over land grabs and environmental damage. As a recent report from Global Witness has highlighted, there is too little transparency in Burma’s extractive industry and Australia’s assistance should be designed to compel this sector to become genuinely rights respecting and open, and ultimately benefit more than just a handful of foreign investors and those with military connections.
Bishop should make it clear that, while Canberra will continue to support genuine reform, if Burma allows hatred, violence and exclusion to flourish unchecked, the very reform process Australia is investing in will be derailed.
David Scott Mathieson is a senior researcher in the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch.