Guest contributor
Alan Clements
As another session of the United Nations General Assembly approaches, I find myself thinking about Myanmar in a way that is both familiar and increasingly difficult to reconcile.
For more than four decades, Burma, as I still instinctively call it, has been one of the great through-lines of my life, a country through which I have learned as much about human nature as politics.
I first entered Burma in 1979 as a young Buddhist monk, when the country was almost completely sealed from the outside world. In the decades since,
I have witnessed dictatorship, imprisonment, uprisings, extraordinary resistance, the emergence of Aung San Suu Kyi, the tentative opening toward democracy, and the devastating return of military rule.
Through all of this, one question has remained: what happens to conscience when power discovers that it can ignore conscience without consequence?
Since the military seized power in February 2021, that question has become almost unbearable.
Myanmar is not simply experiencing another political crisis. It is enduring a nationwide human catastrophe.
Millions have been displaced. Millions more require humanitarian assistance. Hunger and malnutrition are deepening.
Across Sagaing and Magway, Chin and Kachin, Karenni and Karen States, Rakhine, Shan, Mandalay and beyond, civilians have endured airstrikes, artillery, landmines, arbitrary detention, torture, burned villages and repeated displacement.
The U.N. Human Rights Office reported that airstrikes were the leading cause of civilian casualties in 2025, killing at least 982 civilians, including 232 children.
In Oe Htein Kwin village in Sagaing, an airstrike struck a school during class hours, killing 22 students and two teachers.
These are not abstractions called “instability.”
They are children beneath classrooms, families beneath homes, civilians beneath monasteries and villages, human beings trying to remain alive inside a country being systematically torn apart.
That is the reality I would bring into the chamber of the United Nations now.
Not simply what has the U.N. said about Myanmar, but what has it learned? What has it accomplished? What has it failed to accomplish? And does the language of international diplomacy remain adequate to the human reality it is supposed to serve?
António Guterres is approaching the end of his tenure as Secretary-General.
The deeper issue is not whether one man has done enough. The Secretary-General cannot command the Security Council, compel governments to obey international demands or impose political settlements.
The United Nations is not a world government.
But somewhere between omnipotence and helplessness lies responsibility.
Guterres has kept Myanmar within international attention, appointed special envoys, engaged ASEAN and repeatedly called for an end to violence and the release of those arbitrarily detained.
Julie Bishop, the U.N. Special Envoy on Myanmar, has undertaken the difficult work of engaging actors across an intensely fractured political landscape.
Her intervention before the General Assembly deserves particular attention.
Bishop has refused to disguise the severity of Myanmar’s catastrophe, has emphasized the suffering of civilians and the Rohingya, and has challenged the fantasy that this conflict can ultimately be resolved militarily.
Importantly, she has reiterated the call contained in Security Council Resolution 2669 for the immediate release of arbitrarily detained prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.
That clarity matters. Diplomacy without moral clarity can become another form of anesthesia.
I have spent much of my life observing the distance between political language and human experience. Governments speak of stability while families are displaced.
Communiqués express concern while prisoners disappear into opaque systems of detention.
Institutions speak of dialogue while people struggle to keep schools open, clinics functioning and children alive.
The danger is not that these diplomatic words are necessarily false. It is that language can remain technically accurate while becoming existentially empty.
“Concern,” repeated often enough without consequence, can become less an expression of moral response than a ritual through which institutions reassure themselves that they have responded.
During recent travels along the Thailand-Myanmar border, I encountered Myanmar beneath these abstractions: teachers educating displaced children, medical workers caring for communities with inadequate resources, former political prisoners carrying the consequences of incarceration, and ordinary people trying to preserve some recognizable form of life amid extraordinary uncertainty.
Their suffering does not sentimentalize them. Prolonged violence can harden people, narrow moral imagination and normalize the dehumanization of others.
This is why Myanmar faces a challenge deeper than defeating dictatorship. A people can resist tyranny and gradually become shaped by the logic they oppose.
Hatred can become hereditary. Violence can become familiar. A revolution can defeat an enemy and still inherit the enemy’s imagination.
Democracy, therefore, cannot be understood only through elections, constitutions and the removal of authoritarian power.
These remain indispensable, but democracy is also a culture of relationship.
Before it becomes a constitution, perhaps democracy must become a capacity of consciousness: the ability to remain human in the presence of profound disagreement.
This does not mean moral equivalence. Listening does not require pretending that every claim is equally truthful or every action equally defensible.
Nor can dialogue become an alibi for impunity. There are human rights that do not become negotiable simply because their violation has continued for years.
I encountered something of this during my extended conversations with Aung San Suu Kyi following her release from house arrest in 1995.
The woman I knew was more complex than either the saint constructed by admirers or the political figure later condemned by critics.
What I remember most was her capacity for concentrated attention, her seriousness about ideas and her willingness to remain in conversation when conversation became difficult.
That memory makes her present imprisonment impossible for me to regard as merely another diplomatic issue.
At age 81, after more than five years in military custody, she remains isolated from ordinary independent public access.
Her immediate and unconditional release should be stated with renewed urgency.
Not because one famous prisoner matters more than thousands of unknown prisoners, but precisely because the principle must extend to them all.
The demand must encompass political leaders, journalists, doctors, teachers, monks, artists, students, human-rights defenders and ordinary citizens imprisoned for exercising fundamental freedoms.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights could scarcely be clearer. Every human being possesses the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one should be subjected to torture or cruel and degrading treatment. No one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
These are not ceremonial aspirations. They are supposed to constitute the moral architecture of the international order.
My appeal for proof of life for Aung San Suu Kyi has therefore never simply been about one political figure.
The principle is universal: no government, military or political organization should possess the power to make another human being disappear into uncertainty and expect the world to become accustomed to it.
The danger begins precisely with becoming accustomed. A disappearance becomes a detention.
Detention becomes a diplomatic issue. A diplomatic issue becomes an agenda item. Eventually, the absence of a human being becomes another fact everyone knows and almost no one experiences as intolerable.
This is the larger question I would put to the United Nations: What is an institution’s moral responsibility when its political instruments repeatedly fail to alter the lives of those suffering?
At what point does perseverance become repetition? At what point does diplomatic language illuminate reality less than it conceals the inadequacy of our response?
The next Secretary-General will inherit this question. The selection carries an additional historical resonance: in eighty years, the United Nations has never been led by a woman.
Perhaps it is time—not because gender alone confers wisdom, but because eight decades without a woman Secretary-General should cause the institution to examine its own imagination of leadership.
What matters ultimately is whether the person chosen possesses the moral independence, diplomatic courage, intellectual depth and capacity for listening required to defend the Charter when doing so becomes inconvenient to powerful states.
Julie Bishop is not presently an officially nominated candidate for Secretary-General.
Yet her work on Myanmar demonstrates something important about the leadership the office now requires: diplomacy without moral anesthesia, dialogue without forgetting the prisoner, and pragmatism without abandoning principle.
Myanmar desperately needs this kind of imagination. Its future cannot be imposed from outside, nor reduced to the victory of one-armed organization over another.
Any future Federal Democratic Union will have to accommodate profoundly different histories, ethnic identities and experiences of the state, including the immense historical suffering of the Rohingya and other minorities.
Reconciliation cannot mean forgetting. Accountability cannot become vengeance. Unity cannot mean uniformity.
Along the border and throughout the country, people are already creating fragments of that future amid catastrophe.
A school beneath a makeshift roof, a doctor treating patients with inadequate supplies, a community organizing itself around mutual care—these may appear insignificant beside armies and governments, but they are the beginnings of the social fabric without which no political settlement can survive.
The preservation of human dignity is not peripheral to politics. It is politics at its most elemental.
After more than four decades with Myanmar, I have learned that history rarely moves according to the timetable of diplomats.
Dictatorships that appear immovable eventually pass. Prison doors eventually open. Archives eventually speak. Survivors eventually tell their stories.
But history’s eventual disclosure does not return the years taken from a prisoner, restore childhood to a displaced child, resurrect the dead or undo what terror has written into the nervous system of a generation.
When the children who have grown up beneath the sound of aircraft, artillery and displacement eventually look back, they will not ask only what the generals did.
They will ask what the world knew, when the world knew it, and what the world chose to do.
Those questions will belong to the United Nations and to whoever next occupies the office of Secretary-General.
The immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all those arbitrarily imprisoned would not resolve Myanmar’s immense political tragedy.
But it would constitute an unmistakable beginning: a recognition that dialogue cannot credibly begin while those necessary to dialogue remain behind prison walls, and that reconciliation cannot be built upon disappearance, fear and coercion.
The United Nations was founded from the ruins of a world that discovered, at unimaginable cost, what happens when the degradation of human beings becomes ordinary.
Its Charter begins with “We the peoples”; the Universal Declaration rests upon the inherent dignity and equal rights of the human family.
Myanmar is therefore not peripheral to the United Nations’ purpose. It is one of the places where that purpose is being tested.
As the General Assembly gathers again in New York, the question is no longer merely whether the world is listening to Myanmar. The question is whether listening will finally acquire consequence.
And perhaps the question for the next Secretary-General is even simpler: When the principles upon which the United Nations was founded collide with the convenience of political power, which will we defend?
Myanmar is waiting for the answer.
Alan Clements is an author, investigative journalist, former Buddhist monk, and international human-rights advocate whose work has explored Myanmar’s struggle for democracy, conscience, nonviolence, and freedom for more than four decades. He is the co-author, with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, of The Voice of Hope, based on their extended conversations in Yangon following her first years of house arrest. His books include Burma: The Next Killing Fields? Burma’s Revolution of the Spirit, the four-volume Burma’s Voices of Freedom (with Fergus Harlow), Conversation with a Dictator, Unsilenced: Aung San Suu Kyi—Conversations from a Myanmar Prison, and Politics of the Heart: Nonviolence in an Age of Atrocity. His writing explores the intersection of democracy, contemplative practice, human dignity, moral courage, and the enduring responsibility to tell the truth in an age increasingly threatened by authoritarianism.
DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that do not reflect DVB’s editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]
