An interview with Daw Khin Ohmar, Chairperson of Progressive Voice, about the letter calling for the ban on the junta chief’s participation in the BIMSTEC Summit
The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Summit is scheduled to take place in Bangkok, Thailand, on 3 and 4 April.
Government representatives from seven member countries—Thailand, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar—will be in attendance.
The Thai Prime Minister has extended an invitation to Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, Chairman of Myanmar’s Military Council, to participate in the summit as Myanmar’s representative.
A total of 319 Myanmar civil society organizations have sent an open letter to BIMSTEC member countries, expressing their strong objection to the inclusion of Myanmar’s junta leader at the summit.
The summit will focus on cooperation in various sectors, including economy and technology, among BIMSTEC member countries. In response, civil society organizations (CSOs) have called for the exclusion of the Chairman of the Myanmar Military Council from attending the BIMSTEC Summit.
Kachin News Group (KNG) interviewed Daw Khin Ohmar, Chairperson of Progressive Voice, one of the civil society organizations (CSOs) that sent a protest letter calling for the exclusion of the junta chief from the BIMSTEC meeting.
In the interview, Daw Khin Ohmar discussed the potential impacts of allowing Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the leader of Myanmar’s military junta, to attend the summit.
Q: First of all, what kind of meeting is the BIMSTEC Summit?
A: BIMSTEC is a regional bloc comprising seven countries from Southeast and South Asia that border the Bay of Bengal. The group is dedicated to fostering economic and technological cooperation across various sectors.
The BIMSTEC Summit is not structured around specific topics, and unlike ASEAN, it does not have the same kind of detailed charters. Instead, it can be described as a group of seven countries with various agreements. These countries cooperate across 14 sectors, particularly in economic and technological sectors. Meetings are held based on specific topics, and the summit in Bangkok can be considered a regular meeting within this framework.
Q: Why are you calling for the exclusion of the military junta from attending this summit?
A: The reason for calling for the ban is twofold: (1) The military regime lacks legitimacy in exercising sovereignty over Myanmar, whether in terms of legal authority, elections, or territorial control. In other words, the military is not the legitimate government of Myanmar. It did not come to power through a democratic election, nor does it have full control over the country’s territory. Therefore, the military junta is not a government that came into power through an election, but rather a government that controls the territory. This lack of legitimacy means it has no legal right to represent Myanmar. The primary reason other countries should not support the junta is that it does not represent the will of the Myanmar people.
Another important point is that Min Aung Hlaing is considered an international criminal, and Argentina has issued an arrest warrant for him. Additionally, the Prosecutor of International Criminal Court (ICC) filed a request for an arrest warrant for Myanmar’s military leader, Min Aung Hlaing
What I mean is that Min Aung Hlaing is responsible for committing various forms of violence, including arbitrary arrests, killings, and bombings—actions that constitute crimes against humanity under international law. Therefore, not only does he lack the legitimacy to represent Myanmar, but he is also a criminal and, as such, has no right to represent Myanmar in any international organization.
Q: What impacts might there be if the military council were allowed to attend this meeting?
A: Min Aung Hlaing and his group of criminals can be compared to a Hell-Hound roaming freely. They act with a sense of total impunity, as if saying, “The cards are in your hands,” meaning they can do whatever they please, including bombings, without any regard for others. If they were given the opportunity to attend this meeting, the world would simply watch as they continue their violent actions. No one would be able to stop them. No one dares to challenge their authority. Despite the atrocities they commit, they would still be allowed to represent Myanmar. Allowing them to attend would be like legitimizing their actions.
If Min Aung Hlaing is allowed to attend, it will essentially be a ceremony that honors him. To be clear, after returning from this meeting, he will likely escalate his violence, including more bombings, in Myanmar. His illegality will be tacitly legitimized by the other six countries. Since the start of the Spring Revolution over four years ago, Min Aung Hlaing has had nowhere to turn except to China and Russia, which he heavily relies on. Therefore, if someone who only dares to visit China and Russia is allowed to attend a meeting in a country like Thailand, it will send a dangerous message: that he can do whatever he wants, and no one will have the courage to stop him.
More violence will become increasingly visible in our country and among our people. Amid the ongoing crisis, the military regime could take advantage of this opportunity through this meeting. Furthermore, if Min Aung Hlaing were to attend the summit as a supreme leader with sovereign authority, it would effectively grant him legitimacy. From that point, we can only imagine the troubling possibility that the military junta’s illegal elections could gain support from other countries. This is deeply concerning.
Q: If the military council had been excluded from attending this meeting, what positive impact could that have had on the people?
A: If he is not granted permission to attend, it would be a significant victory for the public, all ethnic groups, and the younger generations who are fighting to overthrow the military regime. This decision would benefit those who are committed to the revolution, as it would send a strong message that they cannot tolerate the injustices committed by the military regime. It would show that they are not aligned with the regime’s actions. However, when we look at these seven countries, including India, we also have concerns about how committed they truly are to upholding democracy and human rights.
Q: What are the views of Thai civil society organizations regarding the military council’s participation in the BIMSTEC summit?
A: In the previous one or two days, this military regime has not only failed to assist those in need but has also continued bombing and killing innocent people. With the BIMSTEC meeting being held in Bangkok, hundreds of civil society organizations in Thailand are taking action. They are directly writing to the Prime Minister’s Office, delivering their messages in person, and actively sharing their concerns on social media.
The media is reporting that Thai civil society organizations are demanding that Min Aung Hlaing be prevented from attending the BIMSTEC meeting. The media is also working to portray him as a criminal responsible for committing violence against the people, with the suffering of the Myanmar people being directly attributed to his actions. We will have to wait and see how the host government of Thailand responds to this pressure.
Q: On the other hand, which organizations do you believe the international community should cooperate with at the BIMSTEC summit, instead of the military council?
A: The BIMSTEC cannot invite the military junta to this meeting, considering the legal and territorial implications of who truly represents Myanmar. They’ll see that it’s not good anymore. No matter how much control they have over Nay Pyi Taw, from a legal perspective, they have no legitimacy whatsoever.
In terms of territorial control, the National Unity Government (NUG), People’s Defense Forces (PDFs), and EROs have already taken control of most of Myanmar’s territory, not the military junta. Therefore, they should invite the NUG and EROs to represent Myanmar. If the discussion at the BIMSTEC summit is to be truly reflective of Myanmar’s economy and technology, it would be more realistic and accurate to include these groups as the genuine representatives of the country.
Q: As a final question, what kinds of platforms and forms of engagement would civil society organizations like Progressive Voice recommend for the international community to participate in? Could you provide further details on these approaches?
A: The military regime stands on one side, while the people who support the resistance and seek to escape the oppression of military rule stand on the other. The most important step is not to invite the military junta. If we are to continue Myanmar’s development in the future, the discussions—whether economic or otherwise—must center on the well-being of the people. Only by prioritizing their needs can we hope for meaningful progress. Civil society organizations have consistently stated that Min Aung Hlaing should not be allowed to attend the BIMSTEC summit. Instead, interim governments representing the people should be invited. We have also sent a letter to BIMSTEC advocating for this stance.
Sent by KNG
