I’m sympathetic to the argument that human rights lawyers Geoffrey Nice and Pedro Nikken make in this Washington Post op-ed: that interest in Burma should go beyond the legitimate calls for Aung San Suu Kyi’s freedom; that grave human rights abuses, probably amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been going on unchecked for a long time in the country; and that the international community, including the United Nations, have long known about these travesties. But I find their proposed solution — “maintain[ing] our gaze” and “authoriz[ing] a commission of inquiry” — well-prescribed (both by these two and by one of our own) but not wholly fleshed out here and, if anything, insufficient.
But Nice and Nikken are right; the world has known about these pervasive patterns of abuse for a long time. Despite citing a study that relied only on UN documentation, though, the authors allege that “the U.N. Security Council has not systematically investigated these abuses.” A commission of inquiry mandated for a wide-ranging investigation is doubtlessly necessary, but even a full accounting of abuses will not, like the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, guarantee that the abuses cease.
I don’t expect an op-ed to propose a long-range, comprehensive plan for Burma’s rehabilitation (nor do I have one), but some acknowledgment of the factors that would make a commission of inquiry difficult — the chokehold that the country’s generals maintain over the population, their North Korea-esque penchant for unpredictable intransigence and intractability, and the dire humanitarian needs of the country — seems necessary (the ICC indictment of Bashir could provide lessons, for instance). Urging on the Security Council and a commission of inquiry is important, but important players like China, India, and the United States cannot hide behind either the UN or a claim to need to know more.
(image of Burmese generals, from flickr user deepchi1 under a Creative Commons license)