Dr. Mary C. Murphy:

The Chairman and Deputy Clarke made a good point about humanitarian aid. Most of the NGOs and international development organisations have effectively left Myanmar and very few remain on the ground there. While there are some, they are very constrained in what they can do, how they can work and how visible they can be. They are under threat of being detained by the military. They need to be exceptionally cautious in their work which makes it even more challenging in assisting Myanmar in-country now.

The Deputy rightly made the point that doctors and healthcare system workers have effectively been on strike since the beginning of February. That has had very real and impactful consequences for the healthcare system in Myanmar. Doctors and medical personnel are trying to provide some form of care to those who need it urgently and in emergency situations, but they are doing that under the threat of extreme violence and the possibility of detention by the military and beyond that torture, imprisonment and perhaps even worse. The only medical facilities that are readily available are private hospitals. These have become exceptionally expensive in recent weeks and are beyond the means of the vast majority of Myanmar citizens.

There is some voluntary provision of care, but, as I said, that is becoming exceptionally difficult. Doctors, because of the role they have been playing in the civil disobedience movement, are being targeted by the military. They have had to act very cautiously in assisting people who may need medical assistance. This speaks to the way in which a humanitarian crisis is looming in Myanmar in the absence of that kind of medical care for all aspects of society, including children.

The Deputy asked about the National League for Democracy. I cannot give a precise figure for the people who are detained, in exile or in hiding, but many of them would be operating under the threat of being picked up by the military and detained. Much of the work and activity of the national league is being filtered through the CRPH, which is being led by 17 MPs, two of whom represent ethnic parties with 15 representing the NLD. They would be senior figures within the NLD movement. That is the focus for engaging with the political system or at least with the alternative political system in Myanmar now.

On the capability of neighbouring countries to accommodate refugees, I made the point that Bangladesh is already hosting hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees. Thailand is also seeing some influx of refugees right now. Any influx of refugees in the large numbers that may materialise in the weeks and months to come will be exceptionally challenging for many of these countries, particularly countries like India which, as we know, is experiencing a severe Covid-19 crisis now. Underdeveloped countries in the region will also struggle to accommodate that kind of influx of refugees and all that goes with that in terms of the economic demands on society and the potential for instability in those border regions.

I agree there is an onus on the western world and the European Union to look at the way in which NGOs can be mobilised on the borders in Myanmar to deal with the likelihood of large numbers of refugees moving across the borders into other states in the neighbourhood.

I thank the Chairman for his comments, particularly in regard to the tech industry and other international companies which are operating in Myanmar, and ways in which the committee and its members may be able to engage with those companies in terms of encouraging them to be outspoken in their objections to the Myanmar military coup right now.

On the question of ASEAN, as we know, it met on Saturday and I made the point that it produced a five-point consensus plan, which must be welcomed, although it fell short in key respects. I need to put that in a degree of context. ASEAN is a ten-member body of states in the region. It is an intergovernmental body and the primary reason for its existence is to maintain peace and stability in the region. It represents 650 million citizens across the region. It is guided primarily by the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. That is a very important principle for ASEAN and, of course, it comes with challenges in that it means ASEAN has historically been accused of not always having a strategic vision in terms of dealing with crises like these.

There are also diverging priorities among the member states which make up ASEAN and, even on the issue of the Myanmar coup, there are very different perspectives. Countries like Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia have been more outspoken and have condemned the violence, and they have also expressly called for the release of political prisoners. That is not something we have seen in regard to other countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, which have been much quieter in terms of responding to the coup. In fact, countries like Vietnam and even Thailand may be seen as being more sympathetic to the military in Myanmar than to the civilian government.

There are some strategic difficulties for ASEAN in terms of how it can deal with a crisis like this. It is not a body which can be compared with the European Union, which is far more developed and advanced in its capacities. That record of weakness in implementing decisions needs to be watched very carefully in the weeks ahead. ASEAN is to be applauded for having reached the five-point consensus plan and, in fact, for some observers the extent to which it was able to reach agreement, and we understand agreement was reached with the leader of the military coup on these five points, is to be applauded. However, the biggest challenge going forward is to ensure the five-point consensus plan is implemented and, even on the first point on the cessation of violence, there is no sign there has been a serious cessation of violence in Myanmar since Saturday, although that was something that was agreed to at the meeting.

There is a need for the international community to speak up and to pressurise ASEAN and to ensure accountability in terms of pursuing the five-point consensus plan. I did not mention expelling Myanmar from ASEAN, although some have mooted that as a possibility. I would see it differently. I think it is better for Myanmar to be talking to ASEAN than to be excluded from ASEAN at this time. ASEAN did invite the military to its summit but it did not invite the national unity government. As I mentioned, there is some concern on the ground in regard to why that happened.

Some individual countries in ASEAN are, I think, more open to being pressurised than others. Therefore, there is potential for the Oireachtas and the Irish Government to apply pressure in that particular respect.

On the issue of Irish parliamentarians and how they might engage in a real and meaningful way with what is happening in Myanmar, the CRPH has spoken to elected representatives in other jurisdictions and it had a meeting with four Members of the European Parliament. The European Union has not legitimately recognised the CRPH but, nevertheless, there appears to be a degree of empathy for what the CRPH is trying to do. It has a strong mandate in that all its members were all elected in November 2020 and they are collectively representing more than 400 elected MPs, including members of the National League for Democracy, NLD, and some ethnic groups. However, on a wider scale, there has been very little in the way of formal recognition for the CRPH and that is primarily a consequence of the fact the CRPH is an organisation in exile. Accessing the organisation is certainly possible but the capacity for those in the organisation to talk to each other or to have any control over the resources of the state is completely constrained at the moment because of the military coup. There are difficulties but I would certainly encourage the committee and the Oireachtas to engage with the CRPH, if that is something the committee is open to, and there are ways and means of facilitating that. It would be a very important message to send to the CRPH and would be very well received by the CRPH. It would symbolise an enormous commitment on the part of Ireland to what is happening in Myanmar right now and would give a very significant boost to public morale among the civil disobedience movement in particular.

The Chairman mentioned civil society leadership. This is a little more disparate and there are not necessarily any key leadership figures we can point to. Trade union leaders have played an important role in terms of mobilising the civil disobedience movement, but one of the key problems is that many of those in leader positions within civil society have now been detained. They have been picked up by the military and imprisoned, and some will have lost their lives during the course of these protests. Therefore, it is very challenging to isolate leadership within the community at the moment, and it is made even more difficult by the absence of information emanating from Myanmar right now.