The immediate steps that the government can
take in response to the ruling by the International Court of Justice include
dismantling enforced ethnic segregation in Rakhine State.
Last month, the International Court of
Justice ordered Myanmar to take measures to prevent genocide against the
Rohingya. The government’s immediate reaction was not encouraging. It claimed
that no genocide had taken place in Rakhine State. Subsequently, the government
spokesman said that all measures to prevent genocidal acts were already being
taken, “so we don’t need to take any special action based on the ruling”.
Worrying signs have continued to emerge from
Rakhine State. The military has reportedly continued to commit grave acts,
including the indiscriminate shelling of populated villages, which has affected
both the Rohingya and Rakhine communities. A spokesperson denied the allegation
and instead blamed the Arakan Army, which swiftly rejected the claim.
On February 3, a mobile internet blackout was
re-imposed in four townships in Rakhine and one in neighbouring Chin State.
They re-join four Rakhine townships that have been under a mobile internet
blackout since June 21, 2019 – a dubious world record for the duration of such
a ban.
The four townships where the blackouts were
re-imposed – Buthidaung, Maungdaw, Rathedaung and Myebon – are not only home to
most of the Rohingya who remain in Myanmar, they are also where most
international crimes were allegedly committed in 2016 and 2017.
Support more independent journalism like
this. Sign up to be a Frontier member.
The blackout does not bode well for the
ethnic communities who live in the four townships, and it also raises questions
about the potential destruction of evidence. In today’s world access to the
internet should be considered a basic right. Denying it to people in almost
half of Rakhine’s 17 townships profoundly affects individuals as well as the
private sector.
As yet there is no information about how the
government plans to implement the ICJ ruling, which includes a requirement to
submit a report to the ICJ every six months outlining what it is doing to
prevent genocide. If the government believes it is in compliance as long as no
mass violent crime takes place, it is wrong. It is also wrong if it focuses on
major acts of commission and excludes acts of omission – for example, if it
leaves in place policies and structures used to oppress and marginalise the
Rohingya.
In addition to mass violent crime it should
also take account of the “slower” – and often more insidious – elements of
genocide. Many of these fall under what the Genocide Convention calls
“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
There are a number of issues not dealing
directly with violent crime that I would expect the government to include in
its first report to the ICJ. Some of them can easily be implemented before the
late May reporting deadline set by the court. Doing so would significantly
enhance the government’s credibility.
Some of the problematic policy measures in
Rakhine State have been carried over from a long established, authoritarian
system and may seem difficult to change. But as the recommendations of the
Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, of which I was a member, show, these
reforms are important steps in order to transition to a peaceful, prosperous
Rakhine State for all. By not acting to address them, the government could
potentially undermine its defence at the ICJ.
Inadequate food rations are high on the list.
Persistent reports of deliberate provision of insufficient supplies to camps
and closed-off villages have to be taken seriously. Deprivation of food and
starvation are well-documented elements of the armed forces’ tactics to weaken
communities. Moreover, the UN Fact-Finding Mission’s 2019 report found that
security forces “routinely visit Rohingya villages to confiscate food,
including crops and even humanitarian aid”.
In addition to ensuring the provision of
adequate food rations, the government should allow independent experts to
conduct regular food and nutrition surveys. Without these the government cannot
ensure that the very basic right to freedom from hunger, food insecurity and
malnutrition is protected, particularly for people who are forced to live under
conditions that amount to detention.
Implementation would not only show the ICJ
and the international community that Myanmar is serious about ensuring that a
potentially life-threatening condition is removed, it would also signal to
refugees in Bangladesh that it is improving conditions for their future return.
It is not a matter of funding; it is a matter of political will. UN agencies
and INGOs are ready to provide support.
It is not only the Rohingya who receive
insufficient supplies; ethnic Rakhine and other displaced groups suffer similar
fates. Treating all equally and in line with best humanitarian practice is of
critical importance, including to help bring about reconciliation and hope for
a common future.
The Rohingya’s poor food and nutrition status
is worsened by lack of freedom of movement. This prohibits people from direct
access to livelihoods and health services. It also prevents them from fleeing
in the event of violent conflict near their camps and villages.
In the past the lack of freedom of movement
was often justified, cynically, as a measure to protect the Rohingya against
attacks by the Rakhine. But no such restrictions were placed on the latter. It
is clear that areas with frequent violent conflict may require temporary
security restrictions, including on freedom of movement, but this should apply
to all communities without discrimination.
More generally, the insidious system of
enforced ethnic segregation, or apartheid, stands in the way of preventing
unnecessary deaths and permanent injuries. It facilitates discrimination,
ill-health, stokes hate and fear of “the other”, and has led to long years of
violent confrontation between communities. It must be dismantled.
Another measure the government should take
immediately is to lift the unjustifiable restrictions on freedom of assembly.
Gatherings are limited to a maximum of five persons. This limitation should be
revoked so that the Rohingya can meet freely, celebrate special events, worship
and discuss their present situation and their future. Such activities are
important elements of identity and culture.
A review of discriminatory legislation should
also be undertaken without delay. This includes the four so-called “race and
religion” laws of 2015. The laws isolate Muslims in their own country and
legitimise discrimination.
Long before 2015, additional measures against
the Rohingya were already in place. An example is the permission that Rohingya
men and women need to marry. Obtaining such government permission can take
years, while the process is fraught with graft opportunities. Such
discriminatory and inhumane requirements must be invalidated.
The 1982 Citizenship Law laid the cornerstone
for policies to strip the Rohingya of their citizenship. This was done
gradually, over 33 years, with the endpoint in 2015, when their temporary
identity cards were declared invalid. The government must urgently review the
law, while halting the issuing of National Verification Cards that compel the
Rohingya to accept that they are foreigners.
The government’s strategy for camp closure
and resettlement requires special attention. It affects some 130,000 Rohingya
and has serious shortcomings. The government seems to be making haste but if
the strategy is implemented as now planned it will further entrench the
apartheid state in Rakhine.
The strategy exhibits the characteristic
Myanmar approach of establishing multiple committees as the solution to complex
problems. But without a proper policy framework agreed by the Union government,
such committees become instruments of retrogression, anchoring past policies,
norms and standards. The government should revisit the strategy and ensure it
complies with the ICJ ruling.
Lastly, a word about the responsibility of
others, such as governments, international organisations and INGOs. As a rule
they must not aid or assist a state in the commission of unlawful acts that
amount to international crimes. Instead, they must cooperate to bring an end to
the systemic failure of Myanmar to abide by obligatory norms of international
law.
In June 2019 the UN resident coordinator in
Myanmar led the way when he wrote to the government on behalf of the UN and its
humanitarian partners, stating that no support beyond life-saving assistance
would be forthcoming for the camp closure strategy unless “tangible progress
[is] made on the fundamental issue of freedom of movement”.
All those involved in development and
humanitarian support in Rakhine should review their programmes to ensure that
they do not prolong or entrench policies and practices that could be considered
elements of genocide. They should also share information, including research
that points to persistent problems, so that they can be addressed.
The potential for successful cooperation
between the government and aid agencies is in place. The government can seize
on this potential to demonstrate to the ICJ and the international community
more broadly that it is serious about addressing – in a verifiable manner –
many of the underlying problems that could potentially contribute to genocide.
Source: FRONTIER