Why the UN’s declaration of genocide in Myanmar may not change much

Mike Brand
Aug 31, 2018 · 4 min read

In a report released earlier this week, the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, established by the UN Human Rights Council, stated that top Myanmar military leaders must be investigated and prosecuted for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

The majority of the report focused on the tactics used by Myanmar’s military, known as the Tatmadaw, against the civilian populations in Kachin, Shan and Rakhine States.

The investigators believe that there is, “sufficient information to warrant the investigation and prosecution of senior officials in the Tatmadaw chain of command, so that a competent court can determine their liability for genocide in relation to the situation in Rakhine State.”

“Military necessity would never justify killing indiscriminately, gang raping women, assaulting children, and burning entire villages.”

While the UN investigators are calling for the prosecution of Myanmar’s military leaders, it is unlikely that a criminal tribunal will actually occur.

Sadly, the word genocide doesn’t carry with it the weight we once hoped it did, and crimes against humanity and war crimes carry even less weight.

In South Sudan, the UN warned of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, and the United Kingdom went further to declare that genocide was occurring, yet no one there is facing any charges for their alleged crimes. In fact, the international community just blessed the latest attempt at another power-sharing agreement between the warring factions that would set up a government in which the leaders responsible for the atrocities remain in power for the next three years.

In Sudan, President Omar al-Bashir, the only sitting head of state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity is still the president and seems to be free to operate as he sees fit. Bashir has even traveled to ICC member states, countries that are obligated under the Rome Statute to arrest Bashir. But, it hasn’t happened.

In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, dropped indiscriminate barrel bombs from the sky over civilian populations, and besieged cities, blocking off basic goods from reaching civilian populations. Doubtful that he will be sent to a court anytime soon.

So what does this mean? The international system is broken. Clearly, it is ineffectual at stopping atrocities once they begin, and even worse at holding perpetrators accountable for their actions. We need to do more, much more, to prevent atrocities from occurring in the first place.

By investing in upstream conflict prevention measures, working to address the root causes and drivers of violence, we can begin to chip away at the risk factors that lead towards the commission of atrocities.

If mass atrocities are prevented, people won’t be forced to flee their homes, the international community won’t need to provide as much humanitarian aid, and there will be no need for transitional justice mechanisms.

According to the UN, conflict is the number one driver of humanitarian needs, and conflict and persecution are the main causes of global displacement. In 2017, an average of 44,000 people were forced to flee their homes every day. At the end of 2017 a record 68.5 million people were forcibly displaced from their homes, most fleeing conflict and persecution.

We need to stop trying to put out fires around the world and begin to invest in fire insurance.

Investing in and supporting strong, stable, and equitable societies that respect human rights is the only way to prevent atrocities in the long-term. Doing so would mean that the nearly one million Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh would still be living in their homes, they wouldn’t have lost so many loved ones, and the international community would not need to spend millions of dollars on humanitarian assistance for the displaced population.

In the United States, Congress has an opportunity to change how the US deals with conflict around the world. The Global Fragility and Violence Reduction Act of 2018, which was introduced in the House (H.R. 5273) and Senate (S.3368) would launch a ten-year Global Initiative to Reduce Fragility and Violence and address the root causes of violence and fragility that drive global crises. The Initiative would help the US government modernize its approach to violence and fragility around the world and pilot new initiatives.

We know what doesn’t work. It is time we try something new. Congress should pass the Global Fragility and Violence Reduction Act so that we can prevent atrocities like those committed in Myanmar from happening in the future.

Mike Brand
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade