By Min Khant

Dear Secretary-General of the United Nations,

As a citizen of a sovereign State, I wrote and sent this open letter to you. I wrote this letter as a private citizen who cannot bear to see my country being unjustly oppressed. I therefore apologize in advance if the language used is not diplomatic, as it may contain personal sentiments.

The matter I wish to bring to your attention concerns the narrative of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Myanmar, Ms Julie Bishop, whom you appointed on behalf of our country. Ms Julie Bishop has made one-sided and negative statements about Myanmar, and we will be responding to them.

Since Ms Julie Bishop took up her appointment as the Special Envoy to Myanmar, she has consistently maintained an unfair attitude towards the successive governments of Myanmar and its people and has consistently been heard echoing the calls of anti-government groups to prevent peace and stability in Myanmar. In particular, the brief made by Ms Julie Bishop at the informal meeting of the United Nations General Assembly’s, held in New York on 19 June 2026, were entirely detached from the realities of Myanmar’s current situation and focused solely on negative portrayals. It is regrettable to hear that she focused exclusively on negative portrayals, divorced from the actual realities of progress. The majority of the Myanmar public hold her actions in low regard because her statements are inaccurate.

Indeed, the position of the UN Special Envoy is a diplomatic one, and the political differences that are emerging in Myanmar, impartiality between relevant stakeholders for security conflicts and socio-economic development, I understand and believe that a neutral and diplomatic approach must be taken to facilitate a negotiated solution between the relevant stakeholders.

We ordinary people can see that the current Myanmar government, in line with Ms Julie Bishop’s duties, is always welcoming and collaborating on constructive and transparent communication.

On every occasion that Ms Julie Bishop has visited Myanmar, the government has enthusiastically and meticulously arranged everything to demonstrate its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations. I heard that she met the Head of State on three separate occasions, and the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs also explained frankly and openly, presenting evidences and data to explain Myanmar’s all-round development. Every time we see or hear the news of the meeting between the Head of State and Ms Julie Bishop, we, the people, feel encouragement and grateful for the assistance the United Nations is providing to ensure the stability and peace of my country.

However, every time she leaves Myanmar, we have been deeply saddened to observe that Ms Julie Bishop’s statements, press releases and actions, in her capacity as the Special envoy of Secretary-General, are not conducive to the stability and peace of Myanmar but are consistently negative, further complicating matters and inciting the escalation of problems.

As UN Secretary-General, it is unclear what precise objectives and responsibilities he has been given, but her actions and statements are completely at odds with the wishes of the Burmese people, and he is perceived merely as an unpleasant diplomat who brings no benefit to Myanmar.

What makes this point even more apparent is that at the informal meeting on 19 June, based on her one-sided pessimistic stance and unsubstantiated information, she, as Special Envoy, was unfit as a professional diplomat, criticisms and accusations were made against the democratically elected government.

During her visit to Myanmar, she completely ignored the reasoned explanations from the head of state and other officials, and recognized the accusations from certain countries and individuals opposing the current government. They are nothing more than one-sided statements, drawing conclusions from baseless social media rumours with the intention of exerting political pressure on the democratically elected government.

Her unstatesmanlike remarks ignore the Myanmar government’s support and cooperation with the United Nations, and further complicate an already complex situation rather than seeking a negotiated solution and is greatly damaging Myanmar’s image. The people of Myanmar, upon hearing her one-sided statements, are also disheartened and have lost faith in her actions.

Her statements have also been categorically objected and dismissed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. To further clarify the reason for this denial, the allegations that air strikes are being carried out indiscriminately are in breach of the governing ground counter-terrorism operations. Rules of Engagement (ROE) and the precise conduct of counter-terrorism operations on the ground, which are hampered by allegations of indiscriminate airdropped bombing. The atrocities committed by the so-called People Defence Forces (PDF) and certain EAO groups. It is having the effect of ignoring the atrocities and destruction of innocent civilians’ lives and property by the so-called People’s Defence Forces (PDF) and certain EAO groups, and further amplifying the terrorists’ propaganda.

Regarding the allegations by women’s groups, including sexual violence related to the conflict, As a UN member state, the Government of Myanmar has committed to upholding international standards to prevent and combat sexual violence in conflict and continues to work towards this end. In Myanmar’s culture, all forms of sexual violence are traditionally unacceptable and opposed. Furthermore, the military and security forces have a zero-tolerance policy and all perpetrators are being prosecuted under the law.

The 24-hour Helpline (1566), a national reporting mechanism for taking action against perpemar is fully aware of this.

The most outrageous of her allegations was to describe Myanmar as the “global epicentre of cybercrime”. The people of Myanmar regard it as a reckless and baseless allegation. Who is masterminding the cybercrime activities taking place in Myanmar, Where they are primarily occurring, and to what extent the Myanmar government is taking them seriously and suppressing them decisively and effectively, can be seen clearly and distinctly from the daily news reports?

With a sense of responsibility to prevent drug and arms trafficking not only within Myanmar but also from reaching the region, Cybercrime-related online fraud, human trafficking and cross-border crimes, Myanmar also intensifying international cooperation. Ms Julie Bishop can easily see and hear this. It is unclear what purpose is being served by sensationalizing and portraying cybercrime occurring internationally as if it were centred in Myanmar. Without offering any solution on how to tackle this issue together, they are portraying Myanmar as a safe haven for online fraudsters. It would be a sign of the UN Special Rapporteur’s dishonesty to blame Myanmar, which is being used as a proxy for online fraudsters, without offering a solution for how to tackle the problem together. The next point is the call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. The message to be made clear here is that although Aung San Suu Kyi is a politician, her imprisonment is not for political reasons. the deliberate commission of undeniable electoral fraud in the 2020 election, she is serving a sentence imposed in accordance with the criminal law, having been tried for offences including corruption, which was uncovered, and for mismanagement in breach of existing legislation and election fraudulence. She is merely an individual defendant serving a sentence in accordance with the court’s ruling, in line with the principle that no one is above the law. In deference to her age and out of the State’s goodwill and compassion, the has been given as much relieves as possible, and her prison sentence has been commuted to house arrest with adequate healthcare arrangements provided. Therefore, this is a clear presentation to the Secretary-General to show that Ms Julie Bishop’s allegations are factually incorrect, divorced from the real situation on the ground, and merely pessimistic and negative statements. According to reports about her personal conduct, Ms Julie Bishop has a history of bullying with her colleagues during her time at the Australia National University (ANU) and the severe physical and mentally bullying by her and her team Dr Liz Allen lost her much-wanted baby and suffered psychological trauma, and was driven to the point of suicide as a result of the bullying. I have heard that criticism is emerging that appointing such a person as a Special Envoy was a wrong decision by the United Nations.

It is a matter for consideration whether appointing a socially disadvantaged individual as a special envoy for Myanmar could prove detrimental to the country, or whether it might lead to a positive outcome. As someone with a history of bullying, it is a valid concern whether she can genuinely address Myanmar’s conflicts with sincerity.

Julie Bishop’s actions are more about “business-like manoeuvres” than genuinely resolving the Myanmar issue. (Business-like tactics) to conceal the truth and prolong the conflict. Instead of resolving the conflict, she is using “diplomatic flowery language” (Diplomatic doublespeak) to conceal the truth and avoid ‘fanning the flames’ that would only worsen the conflict. I also urge you to be careful not to ignore the justice for the people of Myanmar, prioritizing international economic gains and personal fame over humanitarianism.

Why would a major global organization like the United Nations select someone with such evidence of ethical misconduct? It raises the question: was it a failure of due diligence on the UN’s part, or was it a deliberate turning of a blind eye? If her appointment is a political ploy by certain powerful nations to burden and pressure Myanmar for their own vested interests, then the UN’s credibility is I would also like to caution against it reaching an all-time low in history.

The key qualities a UN Special Envoy should possess are diplomatic expertise, along with ‘ethics and empathy’.

How can justice be delivered for the people who desire peace and stability, when the very person accused of perpetrating the abuses is the one being investigated? This is the question I wish to ask regarding justice for the people of Myanmar.

In conclusion, I would like to state, as a citizen, my strong support for Myanmar’s continued commitment to working in partnership with regional partners such as the United Nations and ASEAN. Furthermore, Myanmar’s commitment to its own leadership, I would like to assure you that Myanmar will steadfastly pursue domestic peace, stability and development through Myanmar Own, Myanmar Led processes. I would like to add that this open letter represents the sentiments of the people who desire peace and stability.

GNLM