Australia must object to Myanmar's military junta being present at the UN

The opportunity on this occasion is not just to make condemnatory statements. It is to ensure that in UN forums, the junta's delegate is never allowed to take the floor as the legitimate representative of Myanmar without Australia objecting.

The issue of who gets to represent Myanmar at the UN shot briefly to prominence in February, following the military's seizure of power from the democratically elected government. At a meeting of the UN General Assembly on February 26, Myanmar's ambassador to the UN, Kyaw Moe Tun - appointed by the civilian government prior to the coup - appealed for international assistance to restore democracy. He was promptly fired, and purportedly replaced by his deputy, however he refused to step down. On March 1, he wrote to the UN Secretary-General, asserting that he remained Myanmar's representative to the UN. The following day, Myanmar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs countered with its own letter, saying that Myanmar's State Administrative Council (established after the coup to run the government) no longer recognised Kyaw Moe Tun's accreditation to the General Assembly.

A spokesperson for the UN said the organisation was in a "very unique situation", and was "trying to sort through all the legal, protocol and other implications" of the stand-off. Fortunately it all turned out to be a moot point, because the newly promoted deputy ambassador took it upon himself to resign. For the time being at least, Kyaw Moe Tun remains Myanmar's UN ambassador.

In scandalous contrast to the antics before the General Assembly, in the Human Rights Council, the delegate of Myanmar's military junta has been allowed to represent Myanmar without a word of objection from any state. The irony is not only that the Human Rights Council is the UN body charged with upholding human rights, but also that the council has itself "deplored the removal" of Myanmar's civilian government and called for its restoration.

At a special session of the Human Rights Council in February, Australia made a statement expressing "serious concerns about the military coup in Myanmar", and urging the military to support a return to civilian rule. At a second session a month later, Australia again expressed concerns about the coup, and urged Myanmar's security forces "to exercise restraint and refrain from violence". Australia did not, however, query why the council was hearing from the delegate sent by Myanmar's military junta, as the representative of the "concerned country", rather than from a representative of the deposed democratically elected government. Nor, almost incomprehensibly, did any other state present.

On March 27, Myanmar's military marked national Armed Forces Day by shooting more than 100 protesters. More than 700 protesters have now been killed since the military coup. The UN Secretary-General has condemned the military's "continuing brutal violence", and his special envoy has called for a "firm, unified, international response ... towards the restoration of the democratically elected government". More and more countries are imposing sanctions, and Myanmar is becoming increasingly isolated internationally. The fact that the regime is not the legitimate representative of the people of Myanmar is not really in dispute.

READ MORE:

There is no satisfactory explanation for how the junta's delegate was allowed to represent Myanmar at the UN Human Rights Council without any objection from those present. The only thing really to be said is that it mustn't happen again - not at the Human Rights Council, nor at any other UN body.

There are no clear rules regarding who gets to represent member states at UN subsidiary bodies such as ESCAP, which is a subsidiary of the UN Economic and Social Council. ESCAP's rules say only that each member will be represented by an accredited representative, and that the representatives' credentials will be reviewed by the chairs. ESCAP's website states each delegation "is required to submit a letter of credentials, duly signed by the appropriate authority of the respective government or organisation".

In the context of a military coup and subsequent slaughter of hundreds of protesters, denying Myanmar's military junta the right to represent Myanmar at ESCAP seems an almost embarrassingly minor sanction. You'd think the international community could manage more. But with the two institutions best equipped to respond to the violence - the UN Security Council and the Association of South East Asian Nations - seemingly unable to muster any sort of meaningful response, no channel of influence should be ignored.

Myanmar's military junta hopefully won't even get as far as the ESCAP meeting. But if it does slip through, as it did at the Human Rights Council, Australia must strenuously object.