The country’s foreign relations are likely unharmed with two permanent United Nations members, Russia and China, taking its side.

The question, however, is to what extent General Min Aung Hlaing and his military force are able to sustain their coercive rule across a territory that is still plagued by ethnic-based conflicts, while a majority of the people are taking to the streets to call for a civilian-led regime.

The military also has to deal with the Kayin of Karen state and the Arakan and Rohingya people, two main ethnic groups equipped with armed factions who fight for self-administered regions or special autonomy and political recognition. Continuing the suppression of its own people, who are challenging the Feb. 1 coup, will be exhausting and too costly for the Tatmadaw.

But it is increasingly common knowledge in the international community that the term “failed state” also — if not mainly — refers to the political will of a government to protect its own people. If the government shows no good intentions to protect and even displays indications of intentionally violating the rights of its people, the state is categorically called a failed state or at least a rogue state that mirrors a serious threat to international peace and security.

A state’s incompetence, failure and/or unwillingness to protect its people and uphold their human rights are categorically viewed as the reason for the international community to take responsibility.

In its practical sense, the term responsibility to protect (R2P) is a form of intervention taken by the global community in order to end massive human rights violations in a certain sovereign county. The global community might be represented by a group of countries in its ad hoc form or regional/universal organizations with institutionalized characteristics.

The claim of representing the global community has been one of the arguments to justify this kind of intervention and to dismiss the likely accusation of unilateral intervention. A similar strong argument is the objective to end gross human rights violations committed by an internationally recognized government or certain non-state groups.

R2P, which has been internationally adopted as UN principles, consists of three main sets of activities, namely responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react and responsibility to rebuild. In its initial campaign, it was made clear that “prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect”.

Citing Gen. Omar Bradley (1948): “Wars can be prevented just as surely as they can be provoked, and we who fail to prevent them must share in the guilt for the dead.”

Consistently highlighting that “each individual state has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, the principle of R2P is to propose that the international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help states to exercise this responsibility […] and to assist those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out”.

A sign of “assisting than intervening” and a move from “a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention” would be an opportunity and a big challenge for ASEAN and the international community in general in seeking a peaceful solution in Myanmar. Proponents of R2P has set a toolbox of prevention that covers political and diplomatic, economic and social, constitutional and legal, and security sector measures. All should be carried out proportionally and effectively.

As more civilians and peaceful protestors have been killed and many more injured, it is timely appropriate for ASEAN or other countries to be more determined in taking direct action. Although the international community did little to solve the humanitarian crisis endured by the Rohingya in 2017, the world must stop the Tatmadaw’s brutality and oppression of the people of Myanmar.

To prevent the suffering of more pro-democratic civilians, neighboring countries associated with ASEAN, with support from other countries and international organizations such as the European Union and UN, may take tougher actions. Collective preventive diplomacy and threats of political and economic sanctions must be clearly put on the table for Min Aung Hlaing’s military to seriously consider.

A number of big countries such as Australia, Japan and the United States have reportedly threatened to freeze arms sales and military cooperation. Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand are also reportedly set to take certain tough measures.

Apart from imposing sanctions on the military and government figures, some conglomerates who have funded the military coup and repressive operations must be put on the list. A number of international human rights agencies have also called for the closure of Tatmadaw’s access to the global financial system and for international criminal prosecution against them.

It is in the global community’s interest to build a more peaceful world. Humanitarian crises have reached an unprecedented level in Africa and the Middle East, caused by different intrastate and interstate violent conflicts. It should not be worsened by what is happening in Myanmar. And it is indeed in the interest of neighboring countries, especially ASEAN, to have each of its members live in a stable and hopefully democratic manner.

To prevent Myanmar from deteriorating and becoming a nearly collapsed and failed state, ASEAN countries should individually — but better collectively — work in a more decisive and responsible manner. This is what ASEAN was founded for: to support each other as independent, stable, developed and civilized societies. 

 ***

The writer is a senior lecturer, Department of International Relations, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.