India-Myanmar Relations 101: Beyond the strict policy of non-intervention

Amnesty International recently reported “Myanmar nationals from the city of Yangon, were arrested by the Indian security authorities on 2 October for entering the state of Manipur in north-eastern India without valid documents. Amnesty International fears that they will be forcibly returned to Myanmar, where, in light of the government’s current crackdown on peaceful protests, they will be at risk of torture and ill-treatment.”Claiming to merely “apply” India’s policy of non-intervention — a mixed heritage of Jawaharlal Nehru’s socialist government and India’s traditional non-alignment policy —, Indian government refused to take any concrete action towards Myanmar military junta after USA and UK publicly criticized Myanmar military government rebuttal of Monks’ protests.India’s reasons for not rebutting its neighbour’s military regime is not solely justified by its policy of non-intervention, as suggested by an number of news sources:

---

Apart from boosting trade with Burma, the road, built by India’s Border Roads Organisation, is seen as India’s gateway to the Southeast Asia. (Feb. 19, 2001) 

“India’s credibility towards democracy does not have to be proved,” he said. ”But the government is also wedded to national interest.” Mr. Singh defined those interests as including greater trade and tourism for both India’s northeastern states and Myanmar, a goal that he said would be aided by the opening of the new road, built at an expense to India of more than $20 million. (Feb. 16, 2001)

The economic implications of the snub are significant for India. Recent reductions in the estimates of offshore gas in their own eastern blocks have increased demand to find sources outside of India’s borders. The Myanmar fields offered a strong possibility to replace these sources. (Sept. 11, 2007)

the military regime in Myanmar is cooperating with India and will soon initiate a military offensive to attempt to evict Indian separatists and insurgents from its territory  (July 17, 2007) 

India has clear political interests in maintaining “good relationships” with the junta.

---

For the sake of understanding our world a little bit better, Canada’s foreign policy can be said, by contrast, to be a policy of intervention. (Canada is at war in Iraq and is at war in Afghanistan whereas these countries were not treats, and not enemies who engaged in armed conflict first — according to a traditional view of war and the policy of states.)Beyond right/duty to intervene, what can be said of immigration policies in the context of possible human right violations? Quebec Bar Journal (June 2007) reported Me Oliver Delas who argues that a number of possible human right violations are “ratified” by Canadian Courts (He noted Suresh v. Canada and the case of Mostafa Dadar, deported to Iran after he was refused the statue of Refugee.) Clearly, it is possible to analyze both issues — right/duty to intervene in international affairs and immigration policies in the context of possible human rights violations — on the same spectrum, the political will of nations and the protection of human rights. For instance, in the Canadian case, because terrorists do not enjoy a higher capital of sympathy among Canadian population than they do in the United States of America, it was possible to justify a blind application of immigration laws in the context of possible human rights violations. On the other end of the spectrum, it is possible to justify Canada’s intervention in the affairs of a foreign country on possible human right violations. (Remember what was in the news soon after Canada’s Premier Stephen Harper stepped foot in Afghanistan? Canada in the World! Canada wants to chase away the Taliban to restore Afghan Women’s right to education! Etc!
Excellent timing Radio-Canada! But, as we all know and understand, really, Canada is at war with Iraq and Afghanistan for matters of Canada-USA relations, not for human rights
concerns.

In India, like in Canada, politics precede morals. If you do wrong, you justify it by some relative “moral higher ground”. If you do “good”, you do so because you are “moral”. But in any case, you do what can be done at a minimal political cost.

~ par bheroux le 15.octobre.2007.