Georgetown Security Studies Review
16 November 2024
Image Credit: Asnthantan
The Rohingya, Myanmar’s Muslim minority, face what the United Nations has termed a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.” Despite this strong condemnation, international efforts have failed to prevent or mitigate the ongoing atrocities. The plight of the Rohingya exposes not only Myanmar’s entrenched ethnic and religious conflicts but also highlights significant gaps in global accountability mechanisms. The People’s Republic of China (PRC), Myanmar’s influential northern neighbor and primary economic partner, has shielded Myanmar from international pressure through its role on the United Nations Security Council, complicating efforts to address the crisis. As Myanmar’s military-backed government continues policies of forced displacement, denial of citizenship, and organized violence against the Rohingya, the crisis signals an international community unable—or unwilling—to intervene against genocide within sovereign borders.
A Crisis Rooted in History
After Myanmar’s independence from British rule in 1948, the country’s trajectory toward democratization was fraught with obstacles. The then-Burmese government faced challenges in the foundational moments of its democracy, including ethnic divisions, political instability, economic challenges, military influence, and Cold War geopolitics. And, in 1962, a coup led by General Ne Win established a socialist regime that laid the groundwork for ethnic persecution. State policies under this regime gradually eroded the Rohingya rights, whose freedoms deteriorated under a government that viewed ethnic diversity as a destabilizing threat. The 1982 Citizenship Law officially excluded the Rohingya from Myanmar’s 135 recognized ethnic groups, rendering them stateless and marking a critical turning point. Stripped of nationality, this Muslim minority became socially and legally marginalized, vulnerable to abuses with no recourse under the law.
Myanmar justified its rejection of Rohingya identity under the claims rooted in colonial-era demographic changes. Current officials argue that during the 1826 British rule, the colonial power encouraged large-scale immigration to increase the labor in agricultural sites and expand imperial profits, making them outsiders to the land of Myanmar. However, Rohingya advocates cite historical records dating their presence in the land to pre-British rule. Despite such evidence, the government maintains its stance, framing the Rohingya as an existential threat to Burmese culture and Buddhist-majority society.
This exclusionary stance has fueled decades of persecution. Beginning in 1978, military-led operations such as Operation King Dragon and Operation Clean and Beautiful forcibly displaced thousands of Rohingya. Myanmar’s government has consistently denied reports of extreme violence, including gang rapes, villages burning, and mass killings. Findings from the United Nations Human Rights Council identified state-led atrocities that meet the definition of genocide. Although the global community possesses clear evidence of crimes against humanity, it lacks the consensus needed for effective intervention to protect the Rohingya population.
Bangladesh: A Refugee Crisis at the Brink
As Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya intensifies, they have fled in waves, often seeking refuge in Bangladesh, the world’s most densely populated country. Bangladesh now shelters over a million Rohingya refugees, who face restricted access to work and education. For Bangladesh, the influx of refugees strains resources in its southeastern regions, exacerbating tensions between refugees and local communities.
Overcrowding, poverty, and inadequate resources further destabilized an already fragile region. The presence of armed groups within the camps, including the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), has escalated security concerns. Reports of killings have increased, with criminal factions vying for control over drug and human trafficking routes within the camps. Additionally, cross-border tensions with Myanmar add to Bangladesh’s security challenges, as incidents of shelling and armed clashes in border regions endanger local residents and risk triggering further refugee inflows.
The local reaction to the refugee crisis has shifted over time. Initially, Bangladeshi communities were sympathetic to the Rohingya plight, but as economic pressures mounted, anti-refugee sentiment grew. Some groups within the host community have resorted to acts of violence and harassment against the Rohingya, frustrated by the increased competition for resources and ongoing aid packages. Furthermore, there are reports that certain factions have organized efforts to push the Rohingya out of Bangladesh, viewing them as a burden on local livelihoods and stability. The backlash underscores the need for urgent conflict mitigation to avoid exacerbating tensions between the Rohingya and host communities.
This scenario reflects a broader trend in global crises, where neighboring countries bear the brunt of large refugee influxes, facing significant economic strain and potential security risks. International aid organizations, including the UN and World Food Programme, have provided limited support via food supplies, healthcare, and temporary educational services for refugees in Bangladesh’s camps. However, international support is dwindling as humanitarian organizations scale back vital services. Ultimately, without long-term solutions, Bangladesh remains vulnerable to the repercussions of Myanmar’s internal policies and a domestic crisis grows beyond Myanmar’s borders.
The PRC’s Influence and International Inaction
As Myanmar’s northern neighbor and primary investor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) exercises substantial influence in the region. The PRC’s investment has exacerbated the conflict by fostering rent-seeking opportunities for armed groups. Major infrastructure projects, like the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor and gas and oil pipelines, provide economic incentives for Myanmar’s government and military to maintain control over resource-rich regions at the expense of ethnic minorities. These investments bypass local communities, fueling resentment and deepening grievances that contribute to regional instability. By prioritizing economic access over humanitarian concerns, the PRC indirectly sustains Myanmar’s policies of exclusion and persecution.
The PRC’s longstanding diplomatic relations with Myanmar have also enabled it to defend Myanmar in the United Nations Security Council. This support includes vetoing resolutions calling for Myanmar to release political prisoners, engage in dialogue, and cease military attacks and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities. This diplomatic shield has allowed Myanmar’s leaders to continue oppressive policies with little fear of international repercussions, consequently reinforcing the military’s impunity and emboldening further crackdowns against ethnic minorities.
Notably, the PRC’s actions in Myanmar bear uncomfortable similarities to its own treatment of the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang, where policies of mass detention, forced labor, and cultural erasure have drawn international condemnation. The PRC’s reluctance to confront Myanmar’s abuses could be interpreted as a strategic choice to avoid scrutiny of its own human rights record. By defending Myanmar, Beijing ensures that international norms regarding ethnic cleansing and persecution remain weakly enforced, which serves its domestic interests.
In contrast, the United States and European nations have responded with targeted sanctions. The Global Magnitsky Act, for instance, imposes travel and financial restrictions on military officials implicated in violence. However, these measures have had limited impact: Myanmar’s military leaders and elites remain insulated due to strong economic ties with the PRC and Russia, which provide alternative trade and financial networks.
A Potential Path Forward?
Despite clear evidence of systematic violence, the international community has largely refrained from labeling the crisis as genocide, avoiding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which would obligate action to protect the Rohingya. R2P, adopted by the United Nations in 2005, establishes that the international community has a duty to intervene when a state fails to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. Invoking R2P in the Rohingya crisis would require UN member-states to move beyond empty condemnation and adopt concrete measures, potentially including military intervention, which many states are reluctant to undertake.
This reluctance to act highlights a disturbing pattern of overlooked lessons from past atrocities, where geopolitical interests have repeatedly overshadowed humanitarian imperatives. The Rohingya crisis reflects the world’s failure to heed historical warnings, allowing state-sponsored atrocities to persist under the guise of respecting sovereign borders. This inertia not only perpetuates the suffering of the Rohingya but also weakens the credibility of international norms that were meant to prevent such tragedies.
However, achieving a resolution to Myanmar’s ethnic and religious conflicts will likely require more than international pressure. The nationalism that fuels anti-Rohingya sentiment is deeply rooted, making internal reform essential. Because targeted sanctions have had limited impact and broad sanctions could push Myanmar towards Chinese orbit, the international community should consider a multifaceted approach.
One strategy is to enhance diplomatic engagement through regional organizations like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). By collaborating with neighboring countries, the international community can apply collective coercive pressure on Myanmar to encourage internal reforms and promote dialogue between the government and the ethnic minorities. Supporting grassroots movements and civil society organizations in Myanmar is another critical avenue. Empowering local voices advocating democracy and human rights can foster internal change. Providing resources, training, and platforms for these groups can strengthen their ability to benefit the country’s future.
Lastly, the PRC’s influence necessitates its involvement in resolving the crisis -whether that means fully supporting Western intervention or simply agreeing to resolutions in the UNSC to mobilize international efforts in the combat of genocide. While persuading the PRC to engage in multilateral efforts will be challenging after years of complacency, it is not impossible. The international community must underscore how Myanmar’s instability undermines Beijing’s regional investments and long-term strategic goals. Highlighting the risks posed to key projects like the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor could demonstrate why the PRC has a vested interest in regional stability. Concurrently, it is critical to have a champion within the international community who can emphasize the importance of ending this genocide and work collaboratively with the PRC to mobilize effective international efforts.
The Rohingya crisis serves as a critical moment for the United States to reflect on issues that transcend national borders, such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Moreover, the crisis underscores the difficulties of countering state-sponsored atrocities within sovereign borders. In a globalized world, diplomacy, economic structures, and a committed coalition of states willing to endorse peace can establish the minimal conditions needed for security and stability. Without collective action, Myanmar’s systematic violence against the Rohingya will remain a stark testament to the failures of international intervention—a tragedy not only for the Rohingya but also for the ideals of human rights and global security.
Views expressed are the author’s own.
After Myanmar’s independence from British rule in 1948, the country’s trajectory toward democratization was fraught with obstacles. The then-Burmese government faced challenges in the foundational moments of its democracy, including ethnic divisions, political instability, economic challenges, military influence, and Cold War geopolitics. And, in 1962, a coup led by General Ne Win established a socialist regime that laid the groundwork for ethnic persecution. State policies under this regime gradually eroded the Rohingya rights, whose freedoms deteriorated under a government that viewed ethnic diversity as a destabilizing threat. The 1982 Citizenship Law officially excluded the Rohingya from Myanmar’s 135 recognized ethnic groups, rendering them stateless and marking a critical turning point. Stripped of nationality, this Muslim minority became socially and legally marginalized, vulnerable to abuses with no recourse under the law.
Myanmar justified its rejection of Rohingya identity under the claims rooted in colonial-era demographic changes. Current officials argue that during the 1826 British rule, the colonial power encouraged large-scale immigration to increase the labor in agricultural sites and expand imperial profits, making them outsiders to the land of Myanmar. However, Rohingya advocates cite historical records dating their presence in the land to pre-British rule. Despite such evidence, the government maintains its stance, framing the Rohingya as an existential threat to Burmese culture and Buddhist-majority society.
This exclusionary stance has fueled decades of persecution. Beginning in 1978, military-led operations such as Operation King Dragon and Operation Clean and Beautiful forcibly displaced thousands of Rohingya. Myanmar’s government has consistently denied reports of extreme violence, including gang rapes, villages burning, and mass killings. Findings from the United Nations Human Rights Council identified state-led atrocities that meet the definition of genocide. Although the global community possesses clear evidence of crimes against humanity, it lacks the consensus needed for effective intervention to protect the Rohingya population.
Bangladesh: A Refugee Crisis at the Brink
As Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya intensifies, they have fled in waves, often seeking refuge in Bangladesh, the world’s most densely populated country. Bangladesh now shelters over a million Rohingya refugees, who face restricted access to work and education. For Bangladesh, the influx of refugees strains resources in its southeastern regions, exacerbating tensions between refugees and local communities.
Overcrowding, poverty, and inadequate resources further destabilized an already fragile region. The presence of armed groups within the camps, including the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), has escalated security concerns. Reports of killings have increased, with criminal factions vying for control over drug and human trafficking routes within the camps. Additionally, cross-border tensions with Myanmar add to Bangladesh’s security challenges, as incidents of shelling and armed clashes in border regions endanger local residents and risk triggering further refugee inflows.
The local reaction to the refugee crisis has shifted over time. Initially, Bangladeshi communities were sympathetic to the Rohingya plight, but as economic pressures mounted, anti-refugee sentiment grew. Some groups within the host community have resorted to acts of violence and harassment against the Rohingya, frustrated by the increased competition for resources and ongoing aid packages. Furthermore, there are reports that certain factions have organized efforts to push the Rohingya out of Bangladesh, viewing them as a burden on local livelihoods and stability. The backlash underscores the need for urgent conflict mitigation to avoid exacerbating tensions between the Rohingya and host communities.
This scenario reflects a broader trend in global crises, where neighboring countries bear the brunt of large refugee influxes, facing significant economic strain and potential security risks. International aid organizations, including the UN and World Food Programme, have provided limited support via food supplies, healthcare, and temporary educational services for refugees in Bangladesh’s camps. However, international support is dwindling as humanitarian organizations scale back vital services. Ultimately, without long-term solutions, Bangladesh remains vulnerable to the repercussions of Myanmar’s internal policies and a domestic crisis grows beyond Myanmar’s borders.
The PRC’s Influence and International Inaction
As Myanmar’s northern neighbor and primary investor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) exercises substantial influence in the region. The PRC’s investment has exacerbated the conflict by fostering rent-seeking opportunities for armed groups. Major infrastructure projects, like the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor and gas and oil pipelines, provide economic incentives for Myanmar’s government and military to maintain control over resource-rich regions at the expense of ethnic minorities. These investments bypass local communities, fueling resentment and deepening grievances that contribute to regional instability. By prioritizing economic access over humanitarian concerns, the PRC indirectly sustains Myanmar’s policies of exclusion and persecution.
The PRC’s longstanding diplomatic relations with Myanmar have also enabled it to defend Myanmar in the United Nations Security Council. This support includes vetoing resolutions calling for Myanmar to release political prisoners, engage in dialogue, and cease military attacks and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities. This diplomatic shield has allowed Myanmar’s leaders to continue oppressive policies with little fear of international repercussions, consequently reinforcing the military’s impunity and emboldening further crackdowns against ethnic minorities.
Notably, the PRC’s actions in Myanmar bear uncomfortable similarities to its own treatment of the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang, where policies of mass detention, forced labor, and cultural erasure have drawn international condemnation. The PRC’s reluctance to confront Myanmar’s abuses could be interpreted as a strategic choice to avoid scrutiny of its own human rights record. By defending Myanmar, Beijing ensures that international norms regarding ethnic cleansing and persecution remain weakly enforced, which serves its domestic interests.
In contrast, the United States and European nations have responded with targeted sanctions. The Global Magnitsky Act, for instance, imposes travel and financial restrictions on military officials implicated in violence. However, these measures have had limited impact: Myanmar’s military leaders and elites remain insulated due to strong economic ties with the PRC and Russia, which provide alternative trade and financial networks.
A Potential Path Forward?
Despite clear evidence of systematic violence, the international community has largely refrained from labeling the crisis as genocide, avoiding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which would obligate action to protect the Rohingya. R2P, adopted by the United Nations in 2005, establishes that the international community has a duty to intervene when a state fails to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. Invoking R2P in the Rohingya crisis would require UN member-states to move beyond empty condemnation and adopt concrete measures, potentially including military intervention, which many states are reluctant to undertake.
This reluctance to act highlights a disturbing pattern of overlooked lessons from past atrocities, where geopolitical interests have repeatedly overshadowed humanitarian imperatives. The Rohingya crisis reflects the world’s failure to heed historical warnings, allowing state-sponsored atrocities to persist under the guise of respecting sovereign borders. This inertia not only perpetuates the suffering of the Rohingya but also weakens the credibility of international norms that were meant to prevent such tragedies.
However, achieving a resolution to Myanmar’s ethnic and religious conflicts will likely require more than international pressure. The nationalism that fuels anti-Rohingya sentiment is deeply rooted, making internal reform essential. Because targeted sanctions have had limited impact and broad sanctions could push Myanmar towards Chinese orbit, the international community should consider a multifaceted approach.
One strategy is to enhance diplomatic engagement through regional organizations like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). By collaborating with neighboring countries, the international community can apply collective coercive pressure on Myanmar to encourage internal reforms and promote dialogue between the government and the ethnic minorities. Supporting grassroots movements and civil society organizations in Myanmar is another critical avenue. Empowering local voices advocating democracy and human rights can foster internal change. Providing resources, training, and platforms for these groups can strengthen their ability to benefit the country’s future.
Lastly, the PRC’s influence necessitates its involvement in resolving the crisis -whether that means fully supporting Western intervention or simply agreeing to resolutions in the UNSC to mobilize international efforts in the combat of genocide. While persuading the PRC to engage in multilateral efforts will be challenging after years of complacency, it is not impossible. The international community must underscore how Myanmar’s instability undermines Beijing’s regional investments and long-term strategic goals. Highlighting the risks posed to key projects like the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor could demonstrate why the PRC has a vested interest in regional stability. Concurrently, it is critical to have a champion within the international community who can emphasize the importance of ending this genocide and work collaboratively with the PRC to mobilize effective international efforts.
The Rohingya crisis serves as a critical moment for the United States to reflect on issues that transcend national borders, such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Moreover, the crisis underscores the difficulties of countering state-sponsored atrocities within sovereign borders. In a globalized world, diplomacy, economic structures, and a committed coalition of states willing to endorse peace can establish the minimal conditions needed for security and stability. Without collective action, Myanmar’s systematic violence against the Rohingya will remain a stark testament to the failures of international intervention—a tragedy not only for the Rohingya but also for the ideals of human rights and global security.
Views expressed are the author’s own.
Link : Here
No comments:
Post a Comment