November 8, 2019,
Argument
Members of the Myanmar military march in formation
during a parade to mark the country's 74th Armed Forces Day in Naypyidaw on
March 27. Thet Aung/AFP/Getty Images
The genocide
of the Rohingya, and the exodus of 700,000 of them in the face of persecution
by the Myanmar military, is now public knowledge. Rohingya refugees have lived
mainly in camps in Bangladesh for the past two years. But it is less well-known
that an additional 600,000 Rohingya still remain in the Rakhine state of
Myanmar—and they are perhaps even more at risk than those who were forced to
flee.
According
to a 2019 report by U.N. investigators issued on Sept. 16,
the Rohingya still inside Rakhine remain there in “deplorable” conditions and
face a “serious risk of genocide.” The report explicitly accuses the Myanmar
military of continuing to “harbor genocidal intent” in the treatment of the
Rohingya and of renewed “war crimes” including forced labor and torture against
civilians. By some accounts, the military has carried out mass killings and
gang rapes. While the Myanmar military immediately rejected the report as
“one-sided,” a broad consensus in the international community maintains that
those Rohingya who remain in Rakhine continue to be in extreme danger. The
situation described is appalling on almost every level.
Throughout
the past 30 years, Myanmar’s global standing has swung between pariah and
darling—an oscillation that has been predicated almost entirely on human
rights. More specifically, it is based on the abuse that Myanmar residents
themselves have suffered at the hands of their own government. Other factors
that often lead to international ostracization, such as sponsoring terrorism,
developing nuclear weapons, or manipulating the economy, are simply not
present.
One can never be sure why a government would turn on its own people. The Myanmar military claims that it is carrying out these attacks on the Rohingya to root out insurgents and bring security and stability to the country. But the sad reality is that by trampling on the human rights of its residents, Myanmar is undermining its own security far more than any gains it may claim to be making
It is
well-established in international relations theory and practice that
human rights violations are often the root cause of domestic, regional, and
international conflict. Whether it is discrimination based on religion,
ethnicity, race, or national origin, the genesis of war is often found in the
systematic denial of human rights. In numerous instances around the world,
including in South and Southeast Asia, human rights abuses have led to the
delegitimization of regimes, collapse of governments, and revolutions. How a
country treats its own people can become the central factor for how the
international community conducts diplomatic relations with that country. The
systematic and comprehensive persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya population has
now become the central human rights issue of the country. It is also the
central issue on which the international community defines Myanmar’s reputation
and ability to become a modern trade and security partner.
Even if
one were to leave aside for a moment the genocide of the Rohingya, the Myanmar
military has shown itself to be incapable of maintaining peace and security
within its own borders. At any given time, there are 17 different ethnic
militant groups actively fighting for separation from the Myanmar state, and
many of these insurgencies have been raging for decades. (The Rohingya are not
one of these groups.) Wholly separate from Rakhine, ethnic conflict continues
to threaten the legitimacy of the nation and hinders the realization of a
stable country. Ethnic insurgencies threaten to tear the country apart, but the
Myanmar military does not have the skill or ability to fight them. One
significant limitation of the military is its lack of engagement with modern foreign
militaries over the past 30 years. Because of the sanctions
placed on Myanmar since the early 1990s, a direct consequence of
human rights abuses, it has been unable to professionalize its military, learn
about modern counterterrorism techniques, or benefit from advances in military
technology.
Similarly,
the degradation of security stemming from Myanmar’s actions does not stop at
its borders but instead sows insecurity and instability throughout the region.
Refugee camps in Bangladesh are woefully inadequate—in terms of security,
sanitation, gender-based violence, health care, and education—and there is no
strategy for the ultimate fate of the refugees, their lives hanging in limbo.
The very existence of these camps destabilizes the entire surrounding
neighborhood. Further afield, many Southeast Asian countries have sizable
ethnic Rohingya populations. As the Rohingya remaining in Myanmar are abused
anew, these populations become more susceptible to radicalization. In the past,
foreign Rohingya have often concluded that the only solution to violence
against the Myanmar Rohingya is to conduct jihad, thereby creating
transnational terrorism. In fact, the U.N. special rapporteur on protecting
human rights while countering terrorism has documented how the abuse of human rights by
authorities can drive people to extremist ideology and thereby have an inverse
negative impact on a nation’s security.
Looking beyond territorial security, there is also
significant impact for Myanmar in economic security. The sanctions imposed in
response to human rights abuses have stifled the economy and resulted in lower
economic growth than might otherwise be expected. Independent research
documents how the Myanmar textile industry
sustained a substantial adverse impact after the
imposition of U.S. sanctions in 2003, slowing its growth rate compared with
other developing countries in Asia. In this case, sanctions harmed a potential
growth industry that could have alleviated widespread poverty. More broadly,
sanctions had a damaging effect on U.S. investment in Myanmar, precluding the
type of cooperation that introduces new technology, better working conditions,
and global market access.
There are countless other examples, but the broad point remains the same: By continuing to harm and attack its own people, the Myanmar military is hurting its national security. The myopic, shortsighted view of national security of Myanmar’s military leaders reflects a global trend of security officials. There is often a wide divide between civilian and military policymakers. Military and defense leaders are rarely trained in international human rights norms. The long-term value of allowing all people to participate in the political system, as well as addressing societal violence and discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, is vital for national security. Yet protecting these rights is often undervalued or overlooked by security officials. Women and ethnic and religious minorities are often left out of security policy deliberations, contributing to long-term unresolved conflicts. In addition, when a country is struggling with economic development and security in general, an ethnic minority can become an easy scapegoat to blame for the government’s own shortcomings. Perceptions of national security often trump human rights considerations, and this shortsightedness can lead to civil unrest and therefore ultimately impact national security.
There are countless other examples, but the broad point remains the same: By continuing to harm and attack its own people, the Myanmar military is hurting its national security. The myopic, shortsighted view of national security of Myanmar’s military leaders reflects a global trend of security officials. There is often a wide divide between civilian and military policymakers. Military and defense leaders are rarely trained in international human rights norms. The long-term value of allowing all people to participate in the political system, as well as addressing societal violence and discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, is vital for national security. Yet protecting these rights is often undervalued or overlooked by security officials. Women and ethnic and religious minorities are often left out of security policy deliberations, contributing to long-term unresolved conflicts. In addition, when a country is struggling with economic development and security in general, an ethnic minority can become an easy scapegoat to blame for the government’s own shortcomings. Perceptions of national security often trump human rights considerations, and this shortsightedness can lead to civil unrest and therefore ultimately impact national security.
In
Myanmar, these actions are also fueled by a nationalistic and religious
prejudice. The Myanmar government, especially the military, has long viewed the
Rohingya as immigrants living illegally in the country, despite the fact that
many families have been in Rakhine for generations. They are a different ethnic
group from the native Myanmar people, and they are Muslim in a country
dominated by Buddhists. Given this, the Rohingya are defenseless targets for
the government and the military. By persecuting them, they are able to claim
the nationalistic mantle that helps keep them in power. One can only assume
that this hatred clouds the longer-term strategic judgment of the military.
The problem is that this hatred is unlikely to ease anytime soon—which means that the persecution will continue. When even a Nobel Peace Prize laureate like Aung San Suu Kyi refuses to condemn U.N.-defined genocide, it is hard to hold out hope that the situation will change. Instead it seems that the military will not stop until the Rohingya are eradicated from Rakhine. Such a situation would only further isolate Myanmar and lead to an even more precarious national security situation.
To be sure, the Myanmar military should halt its assault on the Rohingya for humanitarian reasons alone. Unfortunately, these reasons have not been enough to sway Myanmar’s leaders in this direction. One would think that the security and stability of their own country would be.
No comments:
Post a Comment