International Pressure Essential In War Against Junta: Myanmar’s UN Ambassador

Myanmar’s ambassador to the United Nations U Kyaw Moe Tun and two ministers from the parallel National Unity Government (NUG) last week met Derek Chollet, a senior member of the U.S. Department of State.

Myanmar’s military regime has accused U Kyaw Moe Tun of high treason, asked the UN to hand him over and hopes to replace him with Colonel Aung Thurein.

The Irrawaddy asked U Kyaw Moe Tun why he did not address the UN General Assembly and about his discussion with Chollet, a counselor at the department and a senior policy advisor to the U.S. secretary of state.

What did you discuss with the U.S. counselor?

Deputy foreign minister U Moe Zaw Oo and I met him last Thursday in New York. NUG ministers Daw Zin Mar Aung, U Aung Myo Min and advisor to the NUG’s Human Rights Ministry U Aung Zaw Moe joined the meeting online. The U.S. Department of State released a statement about it. The Burmese side explained the situation on the ground, including human rights violations by the military. We also discussed humanitarian aid, COVID-19 prevention and the provision of COVID-19 vaccines. As the U.S. is planning to provide COVID-19 vaccines to Myanmar it was on the agenda. We also discussed US assistance in establishing democracy in Myanmar.

Was the meeting a signal the U.S. government has recognised the NUG as the legitimate government of Myanmar?

The U.S. has not officially recognised the NUG. But as it is officially holding bilateral talks with the NUG we can say that it is beginning to recognize the NUG. The US statement also expressed support for the NUG, so we don’t need to explain further.

China, Russia and ASEAN agreed to keep you as the ambassador to the UN until November. Why have countries with close ties to the military regime agreed to that?

It is difficult for me to say. As everyone knows, almost no UN members have recognised the military council. Though the military council dismissed me, the UN and member states recognize me as the permanent representative. I think most countries want to maintain continuity. The UN is an inter-governmental organisation and decisions are made by consensus. So it was decided by consensus to keep me. The credentials committee tries to avoid discord between member states. It recommends what is generally acceptable to all members. The credentials committee, I understand, has had informal meetings with member countries about my case.

As ASEAN, the European Union, U.S. and UK reached an agreement, other countries have also agreed to keep me in my position. So my guess is they accepted it because it was acceptable to members. The credentials committee will have a formal meeting in November and review the issue and report to the General Assembly.

There were reports that the UN and China agreed to keep you until November on the condition you do not address the General Assembly. What will be the consequences of not addressing the General Assembly?

The General Assembly is not a week-long meeting. It started on September 14 and continues until September 2022. There will be plenary sessions throughout the year. The six standing committees will meet simultaneously for the rest of this year. Our delegation will be able to speak at the plenary sessions and standing committees. We agreed [not to address the general debate] to best serve our country in the long term.

So you will address later meetings?

There is the disarmament and international security committee, economic and financial committee, social, humanitarian and cultural committee, political and decolonization committee, administrative and budgetary committee and legal committee. We have opportunities to address those meetings about the situation in Myanmar. We believe we will convey the voices of Myanmar’s people through those channels.

We heard it will not be decided until December whether you keep your position. What will happen if the UN refuses to recognise either you or the military appointee until next September?

My understanding is that there will be a meeting in November [to discuss Myanmar’s representation]. The credentials committee has used the word “continuity”, so I understand I will remain in my position for the 76th session. I am not sure about how they will decide but what was agreed at the 75th session will probably be continued throughout the year.

If the UN recognises the junta, will the regime enjoy impunity for its human rights violations and international crimes?

From what we can see, Myanmar’s people and the international community are vocal in their opposition to the military council. It does not receive international recognition. [Junta recognition] is unlikely considering the provisions in the UN Charter and the global commitment to democracy and human rights. For example, all 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals call for humanitarian perspectives. So it will be ridiculous if human rights cannot be protected in the real world while every country is underscoring human rights. So I believe it will not happen. If it happened it would bring a review of the UN. The UN says it always heeds people’s voices so we firmly believe it won’t ignore us.

The UK government has expressed concerns about the NUG’s declaration of a people’s war against Myanmar’s military. Has the UK discussed its concerns with you?

There has been no direct discussion with me. Some countries have expressed concerns. We understand the concerns. We also have concerns about anything that can be harmful to the people. But the military brutally cracked down on peaceful, unarmed protesters. We have continuously asked the international community to intervene against the military. But they have responded with neutral statements. And some countries imposed sanctions.

We are grateful but our people have gone through violence and inhumane repression for months and suffer greatly. Many are suffering from mental trauma.

As you know young activists jumped from a building [in Yangon] to avoid capture by junta troops. Not everyone can take similar action. They jumped because they would rather die than be captured. There were widespread calls to fight the regime. We have to listen to the people. We have to resist for our safety. The international community must understand what we are going through. When there is a confrontation between the armed and unarmed, the unarmed suffer more. We have to fight when we can no longer take it.

We want it to end and we have to strengthen the forces inside the country with greater unity and accelerate the momentum. We need international support to increase that momentum. We can end the suffering if the military faces domestic and international pressure.

(By arrangement with ‘The Irrawaddy’)