Mizzima

In the wake of the release of the Joint Chiefs of Defence statement on the crisis in Myanmar, Mizzima approached Professor John Blaxland for an assessment.

Mr Blaxland is Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies and former Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. He is a member of the Australian Army Journal editorial board, and the first Australian recipient of a US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative grant. He holds a PhD in War Studies from the Royal Military College of Canada, an MA in History from ANU and a BA (Hons 1) from UNSW. He is a graduate of the Royal Thai Army Command & Staff College (dux, foreign students) and the Royal Military College, Duntroon (Blamey Scholar).

In addition, Professor Blaxland has extensive experience in the intelligence community including as the principal intelligence staff officer (S2) for the Australian infantry brigade deployed to East Timor in September 1999, as an intelligence exchange officer in Washington DC, as Director Joint Intelligence Operations (J2) at Headquarters Joint Operations Command. He was previously Australia’s Defence Attaché to Thailand and Myanmar.

What is the significance of the Joint Chief of Defence Forces statement on Myanmar?

So, this Joint Chiefs of Defence statement is an unparalleled international declaration making very clear that countries from around the world, from the Americas, from Europe, from Asia and the Pacific, are deeply concerned about the actions of Min Aung Hlaing, and of the Tatmadaw inside Myanmar. 

It is very interesting that this statement includes not just the predictable powers like the United States, but also powers like Japan and Korea that have close relations with Myanmar and that have traditionally been quite accommodating, even before the road map to democracy transpired, and that were actively engaged in economic affairs inside Myanmar and sought to downplay the concerns that many in the democracy movement had stressed.

There is a change in the international dynamics at play that this statement reflects. 

And it signifies a potential for international collaboration in response to the crisis the likes of which we have not seen in mainland Southeast since the Cambodian peace Accord of 1991.

What is the likelihood of a military intervention on humanitarian grounds being organised by a 'coalition of the willing'?

Well firstly it is important to remember that the responsibility to protect the citizens of a nation belongs first and foremost to the government and the armed forces of that nation. 

In this case its responsibility of the Tatmadaw to protect their own people. 

The absence of that taking place leaves open in the international arena the prospect of a coalition of like-minded countries concerned about the welfare of the Burmese people, the people of Myanmar, to seek to apply pressure for that regime to make concessions and if not make concessions then to actually physically intervene themselves.

Now we know that there is no particular appetite for that course of action to take place. 

No one wants to intervene directly inside Myanmar because the risk of bloodshed increasing significantly makes that calculation not worthwhile. It is not a viable proposition. 

What is viable however is that considerable additional pressure may be applied to Myanmar to make life more difficult for General Min Aung Hlaing and for the Tatmadaw. 

And we are seeing a level of resolve emerge today the likes of which we have not seen in generations. 

There is a sense of the hopes having been raised and the expectation that it would be maintained if not elevated further and for those hopes to be now dashed is generating internationally a resolve to assist the people of Myanmar to an unprecedented degree.

We have seen the Foreign Minister of both Singapore and Indonesia Balakrishnan and Marsudi actively engaged through their meetings in Bangkok facilitated by General Prayuth Chan-o-cha, the Prime Minister of Thailand, to engage with the Tatmadaw leadership on making concessions. 

Now, the future is looking bleak for Myanmar. not just for the people of Yangon, Mandalay and Naypyidaw and elsewhere, but for the Tatmadaw and the leadership of the Tatmadaw, as well. 

Myanmar has invested in ASEAN the association of Southeast Asian Nations. It is breaking ASEAN in what it is doing at the moment. 

This is creating a crisis for ASEAN the likes of which has not been seen in this generational long existence of ASEAN.

ASEAN needs unity. Myanmar needs ASEAN. Thailand needs ASEAN. All the countries in ASEAN need ASEAN to work.

But what the Myanmar authorities in the Tatmadaw are doing is breaking down the fragile constructs of ASEAN. 

In addition, they are generating the outflow of refugees across the borders not just into Bangladesh but also into Thailand and in places like India and elsewhere like China.

And this is generating a knock-on effect in the neighbouring countries that is generating additional concern amongst the governments of those countries that what is happening may actually get worse. 

So, there is a concern in these countries that action has to be taken. But there is also a widespread understanding among the elites of these countries that Min Aung Hlaing and his team need a face-saving mechanism to allow them to back down. While at the same time allowing for the Lady, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the right and the opportunity to return to the political stage. 

If that is not going to happen the pressure will mount. 

The prize that the Tatmadaw sought with the lifting of the sanctions a decade ago, the increasing of prosperity in Myanmar that was beneficial to everybody including the Tatmadaw inside Myanmar, is being rapidly reversed, rapidly unravelled and we are seeing already signs of a grave implosion of catastrophic collapse of economic enterprise within Myanmar. 

The people in the Tatmadaw may think that they are safe in Naypyidaw in their bunkers, but that is a very short-sighted perspective. 

What is needed now is leadership and humility and vision by people like Min Aung Hlaing to have the humility as a good Buddhist to recognise that the time has come for a major political concession to Daw Aung Suu Kyi, to the people of Myanmar and to the international community and to ASEAN. 

Because what we face today is terrible and seems to be getting worse and the indications are that the people of Myanmar are prepared to suffer enormously to pursue their political demands for change. 

The question is this the right thing for the leadership of Myanmar to do for the leadership of the Tatmadaw to do. And they know that in their hearts it’s not the right thing to do.

Standing up against their own people is the wrong thing to do- it is against their own moral essence.

This is harmful of the heart of a good Buddhist and a good Burmese General and the good people of Myanmar.

There is a demand from the people of Myanmar for change.

There is an opportunity now for change to happen and for it to happen without further bloodshed. 

And that is something that General Min Aung Hlaing whom I have met many years ago understands and needs to act upon