Southeast Asia Spotlight - October 10, 2025 - Interview with Tom Andrews, Director, SEA Human Rights Project

From the Harvard Asia Center's Southeast Asia Initiative, you'll be directing the Southeast Asia Human Rights Project, which is an evolution of the Myanmar Human Rights Project. You ran at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale. Can you talk about the work that you and your colleague, Matthew Bugher have done, what you're currently working on, and what plans you have for the future and why the expansion into a broader look at Southeast Asia?

The foundation of our work has been researching and reporting on violations of human rights in Myanmar, how and why they occur, and what can be done to stop them.  We have closely examined the role of the governments, from those whose actions that  are enabling these human rights violations, to those who are taking measures to protect and defend people whose human rights are under siege.  We publish two comprehensive reports each year that present an overview of the situation of human rights in Myanmar for the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly. But, I realized that this was just not enough to fully capture what is happening in Myanmar so we have also published a series of reports that take a more in-depth look at specific aspects of human rights in Myanmar. 

Our in-depth research has included the question of how the military junta is able to continue to commit significant human rights violations, including the systematic targeting of civilians using very sophisticated weapons of war. We researched and issued a series of three reports on this topic that focused specifically on how governments, businesses and financial institutions are enabling these violations. And, we named names. This, of course, turned out to be controversial among some UN Member States. But while they protested that I was publishing reports that documented their role in facilitating the transfer of weapons and weapons materials, they could not contradict our findings.

I am happy to say that there have been significant, positive developments following this series.  The government of Singapore responded to our report, which detailed over $250 million dollars of weapons materials were being transferred by Singapore based companies to the junta, by launching an investigation. They asked that I assist them with their work and I was more than happy to do so.  The government of Singapore followed their investigation with action that led to a 90% reduction in weapons transfers from Singapore. Overall, we have seen the transfer of weapons and weapons materials to the junta from international sources drop by over a third.

We issued a report on the impact of the coup on children in Myanmar.  We published another that focused on the impact on women as well as the LGBTQ community. We have examined the claims of the military junta that they are the legitimate government of Myanmar as well as the counterclaims of the opposition National Unity government.  We are now finishing up research on the impact of the coup on the disability community in Myanmar that we hope to publish soon.  

There are three things that the junta needs in order to sustain itself. It needs money, it needs weapons, and it needs legitimacy. Following our reports on the junta’s sources of weapons and financing, we are now focusing on the third, legitimacy. The junta is in now in the process of trying to convince the international community that an exercise that it is in the process of choreographing will lead to a legitimate election. It is their latest ploy to seek legitimacy from the international community and to continue military domination under a civilian guise. 

We have been pointing out that you cannot have a free and fair election when there are more than 22,000 political prisoners behind bars; when you arrest, detain, torture, and execute political leaders; when it's against the law to criticize the junta or for journalists to report the truth, when the major political opposition parties are outlawed. So we have been making it as clear as we can that the idea of having a legitimate election under these conditions is absurd.

This is an example of our approach – we research and present facts, we make recommendations and then we engage with the international community. In this case, that engagement is to persuade governments not to recognize this so-called election as legitimate. 

Engagement is a key piece of our work. I have very much enjoyed and have been very committed to working, first of all, with the people who are directly impacted on the ground in Myanmar, so that their voices are heard and their perspective is recognized and their calls for action are responded to. And then there are those around the world who are actively supporting human rights in Myanmar, including civil society activists, human rights activists, academics, the media, political party leaders, parliamentarians, among others who are working hard to not let the human rights crisis in Myanmar slip through the proverbial cracks on international attention.  

So it's research, it's documentation, it's working with those who are on the front lines and listening to those on the front lines, and then engaging with those who are in a position to take action about these conditions. Those are all elements of what we've been doing and are the heart of our plans for the future.

You spoke about working with people on the ground and people who are directly affected. How important is it to hear directly from the people of Myanmar, including the Rohingya, who though they have not been recognized as citizens of Myanmar, are deeply rooted in the history, culture, and land itself? What have you heard from them that you feel is particularly important for more people to know?

Very. The Rohingya have been described as the most persecuted people on earth. It is extremely important to listen to the Rohingya community, including those who have escaped unspeakable horror by crossing the border into Bangladesh or by taking extremely dangerous journeys to places like Malaysia, not because they wanted to, but because they had to. Those who crossed into Bangladesh are now living under extremely difficult conditions within the largest refugee camp in the world –1.2 million people. 

I was in Cox's Bazaar, where these camps are, just a few weeks ago. I've been engaging with the interim government of Bangladesh that is pushing for an expedited repatriation of the Rohingya, citing the difficulties of hosting 1.2 million people are for a small, densely-populated country facing immense challenges.

The fact of the matter is Bangladesh and the Rohingya living there have not been receiving the level of support from the international community that they need and deserve. Part of my work is to report on conditions facing the Rohingya and advocate for a stronger response from the international community.

But, as difficult as the challenges are for Bangladesh, conditions inside of Myanmar are anything but conducive to a safe, dignified, and sustainable repatriation for the Rohingya. Yes, they have told me that they would like nothing more than to go home to the villages that they were forced to flee.  But there's a war going on in Myanmar. Conditions are very, very difficult. Indeed, the conditions that would be necessary for the safe, sustainable, dignified, and voluntary return of the Rohingya do not exist. The root causes of the mass exodus of the Rohingya from Myanmar must be addressed, and the conditions inside of Myanmar that make their return impossible must be addressed. And, in the meantime, conditions within the refugee camps in Bangladesh must be addressed and improved.

Things are going in the wrong direction with respect to conditions in the camps. I've been talking to leaders of the agencies that are responsible for providing healthcare, food and shelter, and they're saying that they're running out of money for the fundamentals to sustain life.  There are also very limited educational opportunities for Rohingya children and for many thousands, there none at all.  Finally, Rohingya are not allowed to earn a living to provide for their families in the camps.  They are totally dependent on humanitarian aid. So the lack of education and livelihood opportunities are making a bad situation exponentially worse.

I hope that this will change and I am advocating that the government of Bangladesh take action. The case that I made to the government when I was in Cox’s Bazaar a few weeks ago was that if the repatriation of the Rohingya is a priority, then education and livelihood opportunities should also be a priority.  Studies have shown that a key to the successful repatriation of refugees is their capacity to rebuild their lives upon their return, and that requires education and the skills needed to make a living. By providing opportunities for education and livelihoods, the government of Bangladesh would also be helping to lay the groundwork for the successful and sustainable repatriation of the Rohingya.

How would you characterize the general outlook? In the case of the Rohingya, do they tend to be as optimistic as possible given the circumstances, or is there a feeling of resignation and a sense of hopelessness? 

Well, I would be less than honest if I didn't tell you that there are significant levels of despair within the community. Hope is a hard thing to find given everything that they've been through and given everything that they're facing.  Many, many feel that the world has abandoned them. Those in the camps in Bangladesh are hearing from family members on the Myanmar side of the border, and from those who have recently crossed the border, just how difficult and harsh conditions are and how the prospects of returning home are, at best, grim.  So there's a great deal of despair. At the same time, what is truly remarkable to me is that there is also hope. I have been deeply moved by the level of commitment and courage that I've heard from Rohingya leaders who are committed to pushing the envelope, advocating for human rights, increasing the profile of the crisis and the Rohingya population, and advocating for the international community to be doing what it has failed to do.

In terms of legitimacy, how do you see this playing out? Do you envision a consensus emerging or alternatively, a solidifying divide among the international community?

I frankly don’t see a consensus emerging.  I don’t see the two largest suppliers of weapons to the military junta, Russian and China, for example, ending the flow of their weapons to the Myanmar military. Nor do I see them exerting pressure on the junta to stop the killing. I also worry that ASEAN, which has been trying to push for an end to the violence and foster dialogue, will decide it more prudent to legitimize the junta by accepting its election scheme and recognize the civilian cloak of the generals as legitimate.

The problem with this approach is that it is not in the interests of Myanmar’s neighbors. The instability being driven by the junta’s assaults on the people of Myanmar, an economy that has driven half of the population into poverty, a humanitarian crisis that has tens of millions in need of humanitarian aid, impacts not only Myanmar, but those beyond its borders.

The many thousands who have been desperately seeking to escape increasingly harsh conditions, including young people seeking to avoid military conscription, continues to have a regional impact. The lawlessness within Myanmar continues to impact its neighbors. In China, the operation of massive scam centers over the border in Myanmar that rely on Chinese victims of human trafficking and the scamming of millions of people in China, is a huge problem.

The bottom line is that deteriorating conditions within Myanmar don't stay in Myanmar. There are regional consequences. And so for that reason, I'm hoping that there will be change in how some governments are responding to the crisis. If not as a matter of advancing human rights, then as a matter of advancing one’s self-interest.  

Your United Nations mandate as special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar ends next year in May. Will the mandate continue with a new rapporteur? How do you see yourself remaining engaged? Will not having an official UN role limit your reach or access, or does it remove constraints. Or both? 

First of all, there will be a mandate holder, and the research and reports to the Human Rights Council and to the general assembly will continue. We will definitely be continuing our work as a project  - our research, our engagement, our advocacy, our analysis, our recommendations.  There is no question that the mandate provides an important platform. But at the same time, I have found that we have gained significant traction by direct engagement with member states of the United Nations, with political players within those countries, with civil society. So the individuals, the organizations, the networks, the political players that I've been engaging with before the mandate, I will continue to engage after the mandate. The crisis in Myanmar requires an all-hands-on-deck approach.

Beyond direct actions taken by the military junta against the people of Myanmar, challenges exist in terms of relative international indifference and reluctance by other actors to become involved. How frustrating has that been for you?

Very. For example, I spoke to the Human Rights Council about the impact of the significant reductions in humanitarian aid and support from the United States and what that means. And I called upon member states to step up and to try to fill that void. In far too many cases, just the opposite occurred. And, as reductions in humanitarian aid have been announced by governments, increases in weapons spending has simultaneously been announced.  

I told delegates to the Human Rights Council in Geneva that we've seen this movie before. We know how it ends. How the rise of forces advancing xenophobia and nativism, that scapegoat and vilify others, even as military spending spikes upward, can turn out. This year we are celebrating, or at least noting, the 80th anniversary of the United Nations – an institution that was built on the ashes of the consequences of those forces and that dark direction. This is extremely dangerous, not only in terms of the principles and values that are under siege, but in terms of the future of the planet. The short answer is I've been extremely frustrated, and it is for this reason that I continue to be in awe of those advocates who remain on the front lines, pushing the envelope despite all the obstacles and risks that they take when they do so. And that's where my hope lies.

In November of this year you'll present a report to the UN on the status of the rights of persons with disabilities in Myanmar. Can you tell us the impetus for this work and perhaps give us a sense of what you have found?

As we conducted our research of conditions on the ground in Myanmar, it became very clear that conditions for persons with disabilities were just particularly difficult and harsh in many ways.  We learned how, as the junta attacks villages, persons with disabilities are at even greater risk as many are unable to heed or even hear the warnings of attacks. Family members described to me the decision to leave persons in their family with disabilities behind because they just couldn't bring them to safety. Young men who had lost their limbs having stepped on landmines described the risk of approaching a checkpoint. If you're a young man and you have an amputated limb, you are immediately suspected of being in the resistance part of the resistance forces and likely to be arrested.

But I also learned that the greatest disabling condition for persons with disabilities in Myanmar is not an impairment, a physical or mental impairment, it’s the social and cultural conditions surrounding that disability. I learned about the common belief that having a disability was the result of doing something terrible in a past life, a karmic debt that one had to repay in this life.  I was told of the experience of being excluded from a wedding as the presence of a person with a disability could bring misfortune to the bride and groom. Of being denied employment opportunities, despite one’s qualifications. I learned how stigma is driving people into poverty, isolation and despair.  And so that became an important impetus for delving into this, that it would be important to research and report specifically on the rights, dignity and quality of life of persons with disabilities in Myanmar. And, what persons with disabilities and organizations promoting the rights of persons with disabilities are doing about it.

And it was a real honor to be able to meet and speak with persons with disabilities, including those who are advocates for the rights of persons with disabilities. I was a disability rights advocate early in my career in Maine, and have a disability myself, so we had something in common. But the challenges that they are facing in Myanmar are exponentially greater than the challenges that my advocacy organization faced in Maine.

What are you most looking forward to about continuing your work at Harvard? 

We have been warmly welcomed by our colleagues at the Asia Center and by members of the Harvard faculty, staff and student body. I am looking forward to working with the many who have significant expertise and perspective on the issues on which we are focused. I've enjoyed meeting many of them. I’ve also enjoyed meeting and working with students who are currently engaged in research projects that will impact our work. I'm hoping that our project can be a resource for faculty and staff and bring increased visibility to human rights issues in Southeast Asia and to our home at the Asia Center. It is wonderful to be here.