Myanmar Military Tightens Crackdown As Election Date Nears
P&C | Thursday, 18 Dec. 2025
Naypyidaw | Planet & Commerce
Myanmar’s military government has charged more than 200 people with violating election laws as the country moves closer to a deeply contested general election later this month, intensifying pressure on activists, artists and pro-democracy groups who oppose polls widely viewed as neither free nor fair. The sweeping legal action underscores the junta’s determination to suppress dissent while pressing ahead with an electoral process critics say is designed to legitimize military rule rather than reflect the will of the people. According to state-run media, Home Affairs Minister Lt-Gen Tun Tun Naung told a government meeting this week that authorities had taken action against 229 individuals in 140 separate cases for allegedly attempting to sabotage the election process. Those charged include 201 men and 28 women, though officials did not disclose how many have been formally arrested or where they are being held. The charges come just weeks before voting is set to begin on December 28, with additional phases scheduled for January 11 and January 25 due to ongoing conflict and instability. The military government insists the election is a necessary step toward restoring a multi-party democratic system following the February 2021 coup that ousted the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi. However, opponents argue the polls are a façade intended to entrench military control while excluding genuine political competition. Since the coup, Myanmar has been engulfed in a civil war pitting the military against a broad alliance of pro-democracy militias and ethnic armed groups, making nationwide voting logistically and politically fraught.
The legal framework underpinning the crackdown is a new election law enacted in July under military rule. The law criminalizes a wide range of activities deemed to disrupt the electoral process, including speaking out against the vote, organizing protests, distributing leaflets or posting critical comments online. Penalties range from three to 10 years in prison and fines, with some offenses carrying sentences as severe as life imprisonment or the death penalty. Human rights groups have warned that the law is deliberately vague, allowing authorities to criminalize almost any form of dissent. State media has begun publishing the names of some of those charged, including prominent activists Tayzar San, Nan Lin and Htet Myat Aung. The three were involved in a high-profile protest on December 3 in Mandalay, Myanmar’s second-largest city, where demonstrators publicly urged citizens to reject the election, abolish the military conscription law and release political prisoners. The protest, carried out in full view of security forces, was widely shared on social media before being swiftly condemned by authorities. The General Strike Coordination Body, a leading non-violent resistance organization, said in a statement that Htet Myat Aung, one of its members, was arrested in Mandalay and allegedly abused during his detention. The group warned that the 24-year-old’s life was in imminent danger, though independent verification of his condition has not been possible. Such allegations have renewed concerns over the treatment of detainees in Myanmar’s prisons, where reports of torture and ill-treatment have been common since the coup.
Beyond political activists, those charged under the election law reportedly include filmmakers, an actor and comedian, children, members of People’s Defense Forces formed in response to the military takeover, and fighters from ethnic armed organizations. State media claims many were involved in activities such as destroying campaign posters, threatening election workers or posting anti-election messages online. Local outlets, including Myanmar Now, have reported that some defendants have already received sentences of up to 49 years in prison, highlighting the severity of the crackdown. The military government has dismissed international criticism, insisting the election is an internal matter. Maj-Gen Zaw Min Tun, a spokesperson for the junta, said at a briefing that it was irrelevant whether the international community approved of the vote. “It does not matter whether the international community is satisfied or dissatisfied,” he said. “The election is being held for Myanmar, not for the international community.” He added that the military remained committed to its stated goal of returning the country to a multi-party democratic system. Many analysts dispute that claim, pointing to structural flaws that all but guarantee a military-friendly outcome. Chief among them is the forced dissolution of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, or NLD, in 2023. The NLD won a landslide victory in the 2015 election and expanded its majority in the 2020 polls, which independent observers said were largely free and fair. The military justified its 2021 coup by alleging widespread fraud, claims that were rejected by domestic and international monitors.
With the NLD barred from participating and many opposition figures imprisoned or in hiding, the upcoming election will be contested primarily by military-aligned parties and smaller groups operating under tight constraints. Large swathes of the country, particularly in conflict-affected regions, are unlikely to see meaningful voting at all, raising further doubts about the legitimacy of the process. Aung San Suu Kyi herself remains at the center of Myanmar’s political crisis. Now 80, the former civilian leader is serving prison sentences totaling 27 years after being convicted in a series of cases widely condemned as politically motivated. Recent reports have raised concerns about her health, though the military denied those claims this week, insisting she remains in good condition. Her continued detention has become a powerful symbol of the junta’s determination to eliminate its most popular political rival. As the election date approaches, the charging of hundreds under harsh election laws signals that the military government is prepared to rely on repression to ensure the vote proceeds on its own terms. For many in Myanmar, the polls are seen not as a path out of crisis, but as another chapter in a conflict that has already cost thousands of lives and displaced millions. With opposition voices silenced and international skepticism mounting, the coming weeks are likely to deepen questions about Myanmar’s political future and the true purpose of an election held under the shadow of military rule.
Japan-Taiwan Talk Draws China’s Fire, Warns of Militarism
P&C | Thursday, 18 Dec. 2025
Beijing | Planet & Commerce
China has delivered a sharp diplomatic rebuke to Japan over recent statements on Taiwan, accusing Tokyo of distorting facts, evading historical responsibility and attempting to mislead the international community, as tensions rise over regional security and interpretations of postwar order in East Asia. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun on Wednesday condemned comments made by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Taiwan and subsequent explanations offered by Japan’s National Security Advisor Ichikawa Keiichi to Western governments. Guo said some political forces in Japan were deliberately refusing to correct what Beijing views as serious wrongdoing, while seeking international sympathy by portraying themselves as misunderstood or unfairly criticized. According to reports, Ichikawa recently briefed officials from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Canada, insisting that Takaichi’s remarks in Japan’s parliament did not alter Tokyo’s long-standing position on Taiwan. He also rejected China’s criticism, framing the comments as being misinterpreted. Beijing, however, has rejected that explanation outright.
“This is not the first time that right-wing forces in Japan have fabricated false narratives,” Guo said, launching into a pointed critique of Japan’s historical discourse. He accused sections of the Japanese political establishment of long-standing revisionism, citing attempts to reframe Japan’s wartime aggression as “the liberation of Asia,” minimize the Nanjing Massacre as the “Nanjing incident,” and whitewash Unit 731 as a “public health research unit.” Guo also referenced Japan’s handling of forced labor and the issue of so-called “comfort women,” which he said have been falsely described as voluntary acts. Guo argued that since the end of World War II, Japan has repeatedly portrayed itself as a victim while avoiding a serious reckoning with militarism, which China views as the root cause of the war. He said this selective narrative has persisted alongside policy shifts that contradict Japan’s stated commitment to pacifism. “Japan claims to uphold the exclusively defense-oriented principle and a passive defense strategy,” Guo said. “But in reality, it has lifted the ban on exercising the right to collective self-defense, continued to relax restrictions on arms exports, and even attempted to revise its three non-nuclear principles.” These developments, he warned, have alarmed countries across the region that suffered under Japanese militarism in the 20th century.
The Chinese spokesperson said Prime Minister Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan had sparked strong indignation among the Chinese public and had also drawn opposition and criticism within Japan and from some other countries. He urged Japanese leaders to reflect on those reactions rather than attempting to justify their position through what he described as “groundless explanations” to foreign partners. “What Japan should do is listen to these calls and conduct serious soul-searching,” Guo said. “It should stop spreading false narratives, face up to history, reflect on and correct its wrongdoings, retract the erroneous remarks, honor its commitments, and act responsibly to give China and the international community a satisfactory answer.” The dispute has also drawn attention to China’s recent diplomatic outreach following Takaichi’s comments. Beijing has held meetings with ambassadors from Southeast Asian countries and other nations based in China, prompting questions about whether it was seeking to rally support against Japan. Guo dismissed such interpretations, saying China’s foreign ministry maintains normal working relations with all embassies in Beijing. He stressed that the one-China principle remains a universally recognized norm in international relations and a prevailing consensus of the global community, including Southeast Asian countries. Under this principle, Taiwan is recognized as an inalienable part of China, and any suggestion to the contrary is viewed by Beijing as a violation of international law.
“The erroneous remarks on Taiwan made by Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi seriously violate international law and the basic norms governing international relations,” Guo said. He added that such statements openly challenge the outcomes of World War II and the foundations of international justice established in the postwar era. Guo warned that what China sees as a dangerous trend toward the revival of Japanese militarism has put countries across Asia on high alert. He said memories of wartime aggression remain deeply embedded in the region, and any move perceived as undermining the postwar order risks destabilizing regional peace. “Defending the postwar international order, human conscience and justice serves the common interests of all sides and is a necessary choice,” he said. Guo added that many regional countries have recently reiterated their support for the one-China principle, opposition to “Taiwan independence,” and backing for China’s reunification efforts. He said these countries have also voiced vigilance and resistance toward any signs of militarism resurfacing in Japan.
The exchange reflects growing sensitivity around Taiwan at a time of heightened geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific. Japan has become increasingly vocal about stability in the Taiwan Strait, citing security implications for the region, while China views such comments as interference in its internal affairs. Beijing has repeatedly warned that external forces should not send “wrong signals” to pro-independence elements in Taiwan.
For Japan, the controversy underscores the delicate balance it seeks to strike between strengthening security ties with Western allies and managing relations with China, its largest trading partner. Critics within Japan have warned that provocative rhetoric on Taiwan risks inflaming tensions and undermining decades of carefully managed diplomacy in East Asia. Guo concluded by urging Japan to heed calls from within and outside the country, warning that attempts to create confusion or shift blame would only deepen mistrust. “We urge the Japanese side to do genuine soul-searching and correct its wrongdoings, rather than creating trouble and confusion,” he said. As the debate continues, the episode highlights how unresolved historical grievances, competing interpretations of international law, and the sensitive status of Taiwan continue to shape relations between China and Japan, with implications extending far beyond bilateral ties to the broader stability of the Asia-Pacific region.
Asim Munir Faces Gaza Dilemma As US Pressures Pakistan
P&C | Thursday, 18 Dec. 2025
Islamabad | Planet & Commerce
Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, is facing one of the most consequential decisions of his tenure, a choice that could shape both his domestic authority and Pakistan’s geopolitical alignment. The dilemma revolves around Gaza, where discussions are underway about deploying a coalition of Muslim soldiers to enforce security following a fragile ceasefire. At the center of the proposal is a controversial mission: disarming Hamas fighters and restoring law and order in the war-ravaged territory. The United States, under President Donald Trump, is pressing Pakistan to play a central role in this force, but Munir is deeply reluctant. Two months after a ceasefire halted large-scale fighting in Gaza, the situation remains tense but relatively stable. Attention has now shifted to what comes next, and Washington’s answer appears to be an international security presence drawn largely from Muslim-majority countries. The proposed force would not merely observe or monitor, but actively disarm Hamas and police Gaza. That distinction has raised alarm bells in Islamabad, where military leaders are wary of being drawn into a highly volatile and politically charged conflict.
General Munir is expected to travel to Washington in the coming weeks for his third meeting with President Trump in six months. Gaza is likely to feature prominently in their discussions. Trump’s interest in Pakistan is not accidental. From Washington’s perspective, Pakistan offers two key advantages. First is the sheer size and structure of its military. With around 654,000 active soldiers, Pakistan’s army dwarfs those of most Middle Eastern states. Saudi Arabia fields roughly 200,000 troops, the UAE about 65,000, and Qatar barely 22,000. Among Muslim-majority countries, only Turkey and Iran have comparable manpower, but Iran is politically unacceptable to Washington, and Israel has firmly opposed Turkish involvement. Second, Pakistan’s military has extensive combat experience. While its conventional wars have not ended in victory, its soldiers are battle-tested through decades of conflict, insurgency and counterinsurgency operations. From a purely military standpoint, this experience is seen in Washington as an asset for a complex environment like Gaza. Adding to this is Trump’s apparent confidence in Asim Munir personally. In June, the US president hosted Munir for a one-on-one meeting without any civilian Pakistani leaders present, reinforcing the perception that the army chief is Washington’s primary interlocutor in Islamabad.
Yet Munir’s hesitation is rooted in hard realities. The first concern is operational. Disarming Hamas would be far removed from traditional peacekeeping. Hamas fighters are seasoned, ideologically driven and emerging from a ceasefire rather than a defeat. If they refuse to lay down arms, Pakistani troops could find themselves engaged in direct combat against Palestinian militants. That scenario would be disastrous for Islamabad, potentially entangling Pakistan in an open-ended conflict far from home. Pakistani military doctrine traditionally emphasizes peacekeeping, not peace enforcement, and Gaza would represent a dangerous departure from that role. The second concern is political, and arguably more dangerous for Munir personally. Pakistan is overwhelmingly pro-Palestine. Surveys consistently show that around 90 percent of the population sympathizes with Gaza, while support for Israel is negligible. Sending Pakistani soldiers to disarm Hamas, a group widely seen domestically as part of the Palestinian resistance, would be deeply unpopular. While public opinion has rarely constrained Pakistan’s military leadership, this case is different because of the country’s powerful Islamist parties. These groups may have limited representation in parliament, but they retain the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of protesters on the streets.
This domestic risk is amplified by Pakistan’s current political volatility. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan remains imprisoned, and his supporters continue to challenge the military-backed political order. Khan has directly blamed Asim Munir for his incarceration, turning the army chief into a focal point of public anger. Just days ago, protests erupted outside Rawalpindi’s Adiala jail after authorities blocked Khan’s sister from visiting him. Security forces responded with water cannons and force, images that further inflamed tensions. Any decision by Munir to align with the US against Hamas would provide Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party with fresh ammunition, potentially uniting Khan’s supporters with Islamist groups in a broad anti-military movement. This is the strategic trap Munir now faces. Rejecting Trump’s request risks alienating a powerful ally whose support could be crucial for Pakistan’s struggling economy and military assistance. Agreeing to it could ignite unrest at home, threatening Munir’s grip on power. The choice is stark, and neither option is without serious consequences. Analysts note that Munir’s predicament is partly of his own making. By sidelining civilian leaders and consolidating authority around the military, he has ensured that any controversial decision will be seen as his alone. As Pakistan navigates this moment, the Gaza question has become more than a foreign policy issue. It is a test of how far the military leadership can go in aligning with US strategic objectives without triggering a domestic backlash. Whatever decision Munir ultimately takes will not only shape Pakistan’s role in the Middle East, but could redefine the balance of power within Pakistan itself.
India Summons Bangladesh Envoy Over Anti India Remarks
P&C | Thursday, 18 Dec. 2025
Dhaka | Planet & Commerce
India has formally summoned Bangladesh’s High Commissioner in New Delhi to convey serious concerns over the security of the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, as relations between the two neighbours come under renewed strain following a series of provocative political statements and street protests in Bangladesh. The move reflects growing unease in New Delhi over what it sees as an increasingly hostile political climate in Bangladesh ahead of national elections scheduled for early 2026. The Ministry of External Affairs called in Bangladesh High Commissioner Mohammad Riaz Hamidullah to lodge a strong protest over inflammatory and anti-India remarks made by Hasnath Abdullah, a leader of Bangladesh’s National Citizen Party, or NCP. Indian officials conveyed that such statements not only endanger the safety of Indian diplomatic personnel and property in Dhaka, but also risk undermining the broader framework of India-Bangladesh relations built over decades. According to Indian officials, the remarks in question were made by Abdullah at a gathering at Dhaka’s central Shaheed Minar earlier this week. During his speech, Abdullah warned that Bangladesh could potentially provide shelter to forces hostile to India, including separatist groups, and even assist efforts aimed at cutting off India’s northeastern states, often referred to as the “seven sisters,” from the rest of the country. New Delhi views such rhetoric as highly irresponsible and deeply destabilising, particularly in a sensitive region with a long history of insurgency and cross-border security challenges.
The summoning of the Bangladeshi envoy follows heightened security measures at the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. Indian authorities have flagged concerns that hostile political messaging could translate into threats on the ground, especially after recent protests in which effigies of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi were burned. Such acts, Indian officials believe, create an atmosphere that could embolden fringe elements and put diplomatic missions at risk. The situation is further complicated by a parallel diplomatic exchange between the two countries. On Sunday, Bangladesh summoned India’s High Commissioner in Dhaka, Pranay Verma, to express concern over India allegedly allowing former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to make political statements from Indian soil. Dhaka claims that Hasina’s remarks, which reportedly urged her supporters to resist or disrupt upcoming parliamentary elections, amount to interference in Bangladesh’s internal affairs. India has not publicly accepted this characterization, but the episode highlights the increasingly fraught tone of bilateral engagement. With Bangladesh heading toward elections expected in February or early 2026, Indian officials fear that inflammatory rhetoric may intensify as political parties seek to mobilize public sentiment. Historically, India-Bangladesh relations have often been influenced by domestic politics in Dhaka, with anti-India narratives sometimes surfacing during election cycles. New Delhi is particularly concerned that such narratives, if left unchecked, could spill over into actions that harm people-to-people ties, economic cooperation, and security coordination.
The closure of the Indian Visa Centre in Dhaka earlier this week has added to the sense of unease. The centre, one of the largest visa processing facilities for India anywhere in the world, reportedly shut early due to security considerations. Any prolonged disruption could affect thousands of Bangladeshi citizens who travel to India for medical treatment, education, business and tourism, underscoring how diplomatic tensions can have immediate practical consequences. India’s Ministry of External Affairs has emphasised that diplomatic missions are protected under international law and that host countries bear responsibility for ensuring their safety. Officials conveyed to the Bangladeshi envoy that statements by political leaders that appear to threaten India’s territorial integrity or encourage hostility against Indian institutions are unacceptable and must be addressed by Dhaka. Analysts note that India-Bangladesh relations have faced multiple stress points in recent years, including disagreements over river water sharing, border management, and political transitions in Bangladesh. Despite these challenges, cooperation has continued in areas such as trade, connectivity, counterterrorism and energy. India remains one of Bangladesh’s largest trading partners and a key stakeholder in regional stability in South Asia and the Bay of Bengal region. However, rhetoric suggesting support for separatist movements strikes a particularly sensitive nerve in New Delhi. India’s northeastern states have seen decades of insurgency, much of which has subsided in recent years due to improved security coordination with neighbouring countries, including Bangladesh. Any suggestion that Bangladeshi territory could again be used by anti-India elements is viewed as a direct challenge to this hard-won stability.
Officials in New Delhi have also linked the current tensions to broader regional dynamics. As South Asia navigates a period of political flux, economic stress and geopolitical competition, India is keen to prevent bilateral issues with Bangladesh from escalating into a wider crisis. The Ministry of External Affairs has signalled that while India seeks stable and constructive ties, it will not ignore statements or actions that threaten its security or diplomatic presence. Bangladesh has not yet issued a detailed public response to India’s latest protest, but observers expect Dhaka to tread cautiously. Maintaining working relations with India remains crucial for Bangladesh, particularly in areas such as trade access, transit routes and regional diplomacy. At the same time, domestic political pressures ahead of elections may continue to fuel confrontational rhetoric from certain quarters. As both sides exchange diplomatic messages, the coming months are likely to test the resilience of India-Bangladesh relations. With elections approaching in Bangladesh and political temperatures rising, New Delhi is closely monitoring developments on the ground. Indian officials have made it clear that while political discourse is a domestic matter, threats to diplomatic missions and statements undermining sovereignty cross a red line. For now, the summoning of the Bangladeshi High Commissioner serves as a clear signal of India’s concerns and its expectation that Dhaka will ensure the safety of Indian interests while curbing rhetoric that could further inflame tensions between the two neighbours.