Preventing a Genocide: The Fate of Myanmar’s Rohingya
As the constant news reports about ISIS begin to die down and the world awaits the next moves between the Trump administration and North Korea, some who follow the news closely have shifted their focus to Myanmar, the land of the blood-red rubies. The extraordinarily poor treatment of the Rohingya of Myanmar has begun to seep into the spotlight and Myanmar’s State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, has finally visited the region.
The Rohingya is a group of heavily persecuted Muslims mainly residing within the Rakhine State (Arakan) in the Buddhist-majority nation of Myanmar. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, at least 168,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar in just the last five years, and “the total number of Rohingya refugees and internally displaced Rohingya in the region is estimated at 420,000 and 120,000 respectively.” Unfortunately, this was published in May of 2017, before the newest wave of suffering. Countless Rohingya have since fled Myanmar, including 270,000 to neighboring Bangladesh in early September.
Within their home country of Myanmar, they have been denied citizenship and education, and have been executed, detained without due process, coerced into forced labor, tortured, and raped. The United Nations Special Rapporteur classified the situation as widespread “systemic abuse” and expressed concerns that the government of Myanmar was actively committing genocide and crimes against humanity. Myanmar’s actions are undoubtedly in direct violation of the international laws which it is subject to, such as the Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, the Charter of the United Nations, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and others.
The government of Myanmar does not recognize the Rohingya as an ethnic group and denies them citizenship under the rules and regulations of the 1982 Burmese Citizenship Law, which separates citizenship into three tiers, none of which allow for the inclusion of the Rohingya. The byproduct of this discriminatory policy is that children of Rohingya parents may be born stateless, which directly violates the right of children to a nationality, an aspect of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that Myanmar is subject to. Without legal protection as citizens, the Rohingya also suffer from the various forms of degrading treatment and crimes against humanity previously mentioned.
It’s not that the international community has done nothing to address the problems in Myanmar. In fact, the United States and the European Union imposed economic sanctions and arms embargoes in an attempt to force the ruling military government in Myanmar to change its policies. However, with Myanmar’s recent democratic reforms and improvements, most economic sanctions have been dropped (European Union in 2013, United States in 2016). There remain, however, a few limited restrictions on the trade of sensitive goods—such as weapons—but these can hardly be considered serious barriers to economic development. As a result, the treatment of the Rohingya by the government of Myanmar has gone mostly unpunished.
Furthermore, no regional policies or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) policies have been drawn up to address the problem. There are two major reasons for this. One is that most states in Southeast Asia haven’t signed the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and are using this fact to not take action. The other reason for a lack of regional response is that one of ASEAN’s fundamental principles is noninterference in a member state’s internal affairs. Though recently Bangladesh—which is bearing the brunt of the refugee wave from Myanmar—has dedicated some attention to this matter and even suggested various relocation plans with varying degrees of humaneness, but it is nonetheless unable to solve the problem in any meaningful way.
To solve this crisis, the international community must ensure the safety of the Rohingya population while simultaneously pursuing a legal and political solution.
The legal prong of the solution is simpler, but much less likely to succeed due to political barriers and Myanmar’s lack of willingness to be tried at an international court. Since the International Court of Justice cannot try the state of Myanmar without Myanmar’s explicit consent, it is not useful for resolving this conflict. Regional bodies, such as ASEAN, might have more immediate relevance and familiarity with the problem, but lack the authority and enforcement to make any significant changes, especially given political infighting. Thus, only the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a possibility because the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) may refer individual cases to the ICC, regardless of Myanmar’s willingness.
The political prong of the solution is having Chinese support for an ICC prosecution. It seems that prosecution of specific Burmese military officers and politicians through the ICC, combined with political pressure from the People’s Republic of China—one of its most important allies—is the best option. Normally, states which are not party to the Rome Statute of the ICC cannot be tried by the court, but there is one exception. When a situation is recognized by the UNSC as a case of crimes against humanity or genocide, the UNSC may refer the case to the ICC, regardless of whether the accused person(s) are citizens or residents of a state which is not party to the Rome Statute. This is why pressure from China is so critical.
Without Chinese support (or at least an abstention in the UNSC), no such resolution can pass and the case will not be referred to the ICC. There is sound precedent for this type of referral, as the UNSC used this approach to address the Darfur Genocide in Sudan. The major shortcoming of this approach is that the ICC does not begin trial until the people they are prosecuting are able to stand before the court.
This raises two obvious problems. First, the UNSC must actually approve of this, meaning none of the five permanent members can veto the resolution, which is difficult to say the least. In particular, China has significant economic dealings in Myanmar and would want to preserve stability and protect a pro-China ally in a strategically important region. For instance, one of the major regional issues is competition between India and China to build a gas pipeline from drilling sites in Rakhine State. Aside from strategic economic importance, this is also particularly noteworthy because the majority of Rohingya reside in Rakhine State and will likely suffer further abuses if a gas pipeline is to be constructed.
The second obvious issue is that the offending Burmese officials are residing in Myanmar, which will likely be very unwilling to extradite them to be prosecuted. However, the current government may feel that extradition is worth it, if they believe that this ICC prosecution would allow them to “settle” the Rohingya dispute at the cost of a few military officers. Essentially, a political bargain must be struck for Myanmar to cooperate.
The issue of Chinese support for a UNSC referral of the situation to the ICC and extradition of Burmese officials is the greatest obstacle to the progress of this proposed solution. Realistically, chances that China will proceed and cooperate with this type of plan are slim. However, recent political developments may motivate Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Chinese leadership to act differently. With Western Europe abandoning the United States and attempting to paint President Donald Trump as a toddler, China could potentially take advantage of the situation to adopt a position of world leadership.
Pressuring the government of Myanmar could strengthen China’s international prestige and allow it to make a play for the leadership vacuum left by the fallout between Europe and the United States. In addition, it could help draw some attention away from China’s own human rights record, which is admittedly quite dodgy. If the divide between Western Europe and the United States continues to grow, this outcome becomes more likely, as China will stand to gain more by occupying the leadership void.
However, the outcome of China’s leadership and support remains to be seen. In general, the odds are stacked heavily against any resolution of this problem. Most likely, the conventional logic will prevail and China will protect the government of Myanmar and ignore its human rights abuses. As previously mentioned, China’s economic interests, including constructing a gas pipeline from Rakhine State to Yunnan Province in China, likely outweigh human rights concerns. Other nations can certainly attempt to exert influence over Myanmar, but none can have the impact that China would have, as according to the CIA World Factbook, 40.6% of Myanmar’s exports and 33.9% of Myanmar’s imports are controlled by China, which also happens to be the dominant regional power.
I’ve painted quite a gloomy picture, and I truly do think the situation is this dire. To be fair, one can easily claim that my analysis is insufficient or incomplete, as these issues are incredibly complicated. However, for the fate of the Rohingya, the world must act quickly and act decisively, because when it comes to sensitive issues of human rights, the world sadly tends towards protecting personal interests. Unfortunately, the Rohingya do not have enough time or blood to sacrifice to wait for the world’s conscience to awake and discover that we’ve watched the next great genocide unfold before our eyes.
