3/14/2021 0 Comments Myanmar Coup D'etat![]() On February 1, 2021, the Myanmese Military initiated a coup d’etat against Aung San Suu Kyi’s government, ousting her Cabinet and the Parliament from power. As it stands, Aung San Suu Kyi is currently under house arrest by the new military government. The election for Parliament in November 2020 resulted in a sweeping victory for the National League for Democracy (NLD). In the aftermath, the military stated that there was widespread voter fraud in the election, where their party The Union Solidarity and Development Party lost the election and Parliament seats. The military stated their actions on February 1 were justified since Article 417 of Myanmar’s Constitution allows the military to take over in times of emergency. However, Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy have stated that February 1 was a coup d’etat. In a televised address after the coup, Myanmar Army chief General Min Aung Hlaing pointed to alleged voter fraud as the military’s reason for seizing power. The country’s election commission along with independent observers have rejected this claim— US-based Carter Center reported no “major irregularities”. Still, some Burmese military supporters as well as American citizens have pointed to conspiracy theories in hopes of linking both Myanmar’s recent national election and America’s recent national election as fraudulent. Defying military bans on organising and protesting, tens of thousands if not more of Burmese continue to take to the streets in a yet-unbroken streak. “From beauty pageant queens to drag queens to Buddhist monks,” the protests take many forms writes Miriam Berger of the Washington Post. Michael Ghilezan, a partner in a US law firm who lives in the Burmese city of Yangon, describes the most common reaction among his Burmese friends as anger. At the same time, however, there appear to be limited numbers of military supporters. They were seen last week waving flags in Yangon. Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader of Burmese political party National League for Democracy. She is the daughter of Aang San, the Burmese nationalist and revolutionary who led the post-WWII movement for independence. Aung San Suu Kyi rose to power during the 1988 uprising against general Ne Win’s democracy. Earning a reputation as an idealistic activist, leader, and emphatic speaker, she persevered through military pressure to quit and unreasonable periods of detention to become State Counsellor, the highest office in the country. The National League of Democracy is a major political party that has been the ruling part since 2015. While it was established in 1988 and won the majority of Parliament seats in the 1990 election, the military refused to step down from power. Thus began another struggle to establish democracy in Myanmar until 2012, when the National League of Democracy won all of the seats contested in the election for parliament, although the total number of seats at stake in that election were fewer than five percent of the total seats in parliament (Harvard Divinity School). In early February, Myanmar’s military implemented a national internet shutdown to prevent the dissemination of information from what is occurring in the country. Since then, 50% of the population used social media, particularly Facebook, to openly protest the military’s coup and demand the reinstatement of Parliament and Aun Saan Suu Kyi. Coinciding with the outcries for democracy on social media, millions of people in Myanmar took to the streets to object to the military’s illegal seizure of power and Aun Saan Suu Kyi’s house arrest. In America, we’ve observed fraudulent claims from our own national leaders of a “rigged election” and “widespread voter fraud”. As in Myanmar, these claims led to action— the destruction of Capitol Hill, the symbolic halls of democracy, appeared on January 6, 2020 to be moments away. Although it is easy to dismiss the ease of which democracy ended in Myanmar, the foundations of US democracy appeared just as unstable only two months ago. Yet, while the immediate threat is over, the mistrust in government remains, as does the extreme polarisation. The questions remain— how close were— and are— we to the brink of disaster?
0 Comments
![]() Najib Razak, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, was found guilty on July 28 for seven counts of corruption “and sentenced him to twelve years in jail and a nearly $50 million fine” (Council on Foreign Relations). These allegations come from the infamous case where Najib Razak was accused of stealing about “3.5 billion. . . from the 1MDB [1Malaysian Development Berhad] fund and laundered by Najib’s associates”, a public account by the government meant to promote economic development in Malaysia. Before Najib’s arrest in July 2018 by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Umno party, the right-wing political party that Najib represented as Prime Minister, lost the Election after holding power for approximately sixty-one years to the Malaysian United Indiginous Party (MUIP). The MUIP and Malaysia are currently led by Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. Muhyiddin Yassin has promised in light of the Najib Razak trials to introduce anti-corruption legislation reform to prevent this event from occurring again. Works Cited Ratcliffe, Rebecca. “1MDB Scandal: Najib Razak Handed 12-Year Jail Sentence.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 28 July 2020, www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/28/1mdb-scandal-najib-razak-verdict-malaysia. “The Implications of the Najib Razak Case.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/blog/implications-najib-razak-case. ![]() Secretary of State Mike Pompeo released a press statement on July 13, 2020 which declared three US positions: the People’s Republic of China cannot claim part of the Philippines’ oceanic territory as its own and must stop its harassment of Philippine industry (fisheries, offshore wind farms) in the area, the PRC has no legitimate territorial waters in the South China Sea beyond its claims in the Spratly Islands, and the US rejects the PRC’s claim on James Shoal, a submerged shoal 1000 miles from the Chinese mainland. Pictured is a map of several country’s maritime claims in the South China Sea. Many of these claims overlap, and are sources of conflict not just for the countries involved but their allies. Claims to the sea means the rights to develop and exploit the territory for the country that owns them. Generally, a country is granted underwater and aquatic resources up to 200 miles out from its coast, but this in the South China Sea this is not possible. One major conflict in the South China Sea arises from the expansion of Chinese claims, which the US and US-aligned countries seek to counter. This press statement from Michael Pompeo is in line with the status quo. The Obama administration also sought to counter China’s territorial claims. It is certain that, as tensions between the US and China escalate into what some consider a new Cold War, conflicts will not be resolved quickly in the South China Sea. Works Cited “U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea.” United States Department of State, 15 July 2020, www.state.gov/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea. Gupta, Shishir. “Mike Pompeo Sets Agenda for a New Cold War with China. Russia Will Be Key.” Hindustan Times, HT Media Limited, 24 July 2020, www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/mike-pompeo-sets-agenda-for-a-new-cold-war-with-china-russia-will-be-key/story-pqOH74cFjqfZFzYashstJJ.html. Wikipedia contributors. "FONOPs during the Obama Administration." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 May. 2020. Web. 24 Jul. 2020. Wikipedia contributors. "Exclusive economic zone." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 Jul. 2020. Web. 24 Jul. 2020. Admin. “Challenging Beijing in the South China Sea « State of Affairs.” Voice of America, 31 July 2012, blogs.voanews.com/state-department-news/2012/07/31/challenging-beijing-in-the-south-china-sea. |
AboutEvents from around Asia circulate here. ArchivesCategories |