Throughout history, atrocity crimes like genocide have transcended borders, religions, beliefs, and cultures. Since the term was created (Moses, 2013)., more than ten genocides have been recognized around the world (Pinker, 2012). On November 11th, 2019, the Gambia filed a lawsuit against the Myanmar government at the International Court of Justice, for the genocide that took place beginning in October 2016, in Myanmar’s Rakhine State against Rohingya Muslims (Ochab, 2019). As with earlier genocides, powerful international players did not do enough to protect the lives of innocent people.
First, the pathologies of international organizations like the United Nations (UN) have resulted in their failure to protect the Rohingya, and their hesitation to declare this a genocide (Barnett & Finnermore, 1999, p.720). Second, Canada was the first country to declare this incident a genocide and led international organizations (IOs) to recognize this as well, but it did not do enough to take action against Myanmar both before and after it declared this (Harris, 2018). Third, the strategic relationship of China with Myanmar, have led China to continue supporting Myanmar and refuse to call the Myanmar government’s actions a genocide (Li & Lye, 2009). The international community has recognized its need to protect vulnerable populations through “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), (General Assembly, 2005) however many governments and IOs hesitate to apply the term ‘genocide’ since it reveals their failure to protect vulnerable populations. The ultimate decision to recognize cases such as Rohingya as a genocide (or fail to do so) have varied based on the pathologies of IOs, the global image certain countries are expected to uphold and the strategic relationships governments have with Myanmar.
Since the term was first coined by Raphael Lemkin, genocide has been proclaimed by the UN as an international crime (Moses, 2013). Lemkin’s goal was to create a term which had universal applicability (Moses, 2013) and went beyond criminalizing the Holocaust (the event which sparked the creation of this term) so that he not only protected jews, but all peoples who the international community agreed had been victims of ‘genocide,’ before and after the Holocaust (Moses, 2013). While the creation of this term provided an opportunity for the international community to protect vulnerable populations, it also placed a heavy burden to act, through global agreements like R2P, and resulted in many governments hesitatating to label crimes as ‘genocide.’
The Rohingya Genocide took place in October 2016, but there is a longer history of oppression towards the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar (Burke, 2016).. Ethnic and religious tensions have caused violence against Muslim communities for decades, especially in the Rakhine State, where Muslims are oppressed by ethnic Rahkhines and the Myanmar government (Burke, 2016, pp.263 - 264). In order to establish their group identity, the Muslims in the Rakhine state identify themselves as Rohingya, but both ethnic Rakhines and the Myanmar government refuse to use the term (Burke, 2016, 264). Compulsory, institutional and productive power have all been exercised by the Myanmar government to oppress the Rohingya (Barnett & Duvall, 2004, pp. 3-4) . The conflict escalated in 2016, when the Myanmar military began a crackdown against the Rohingya to drive them out of the region (Kirby, 2018). More than 700,000 fled the region as refugees, and at least 10,000 Rohingya have been killed (Kirby. 2018).
In 2018, two years following the Rohingya genocide, the United Nations first recognized it using the term ‘genocide’ (Pensky, 2018). Their lack of action to protect the Rohingya during earlier stages of the conflict, is a clear breach of the UN’s R2P agreement (General Assembly, 2005). Since its creation, R2P has been used as a political slogan, which can be interpreted differently by various governments and only some aspects are grounded in concepts of established international law (Stahn, 2007). Therefore, UN member states are bound by R2P to take action after recognizing a genocide to preserve their image, but the complex internal structure of this agreement allows them to define ‘genocide’ in different ways. This is why many member states remove their obligation to act by simply refraining from labelling an atrocity like the Rohingya Genocide as a ‘genocide.’ Ultimately, while IOs claim that they will protect individuals through R2P, they still maintain pathologies that prevent them from meeting their defined purpose.
One of these pathologies is “irrationality of rationalization,” which is when the organization focuses more on the process than the outcome, and they lose sight of why those procedures have been put in place Barnett & Finnermore, 1999, p.720). Thus, in the process of following procedures to determine whether the conflict in Myanmar was one that the UN should intervene in, they lost sight of their responsibility to protect all the people who were dying.
A second pathology is “normalization of deviance,” in which small decisions to deviate continue over time (Barnett &. Finnermore, 1999, p.721). This is especially dangerous because IOs are incredibly powerful, given their ability to classify the world and establish the boundaries of acceptable action (Barnett & Finnermore, 1999, pp. 710 - 711). Therefore, when the Rohingya Genocide took place, the UN hesitated to declare it a ‘genocide’ right away because of their standard to act when recognizing a genocide. This kind of deviance from the UN’s goals to protect all populations has become normalized; the UN secretary general himself has said that the R2P commitment has been breached so many times in practice (General Assembly, 2018). He also said that “all atrocity crimes are preventable.” (UN General Assembly, 2018). Despite this recognition of the lack of action, it persists around the world. After 10,000 Rohingya had died (Kirby, 2018), the UN still took two years to declare the atrocities committed by the Myanmar government a genocide (Pensky, 2018). Evidently, organizations like the UN have tremendous power, but their pathologies cause them to hesitate to label conflicts like Rohingya as ‘genocide’ and prevent them from taking action right away.
In terms of Canada, it is clear that its motivations to recognize the Rohingya genocide were to preserve their global image. Canada, which can be defined as a “middle power” in global politics, has been voicing its concern over human rights issues globally. It is one of the first countries who adopted a human security approach in its foreign policy, with a focus on genocide prevention through R2P, following the international community’s lack of action in preventing the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Considering Canada’s reputation, it was pressured by NGOs like Human Rights Watch to recognize the conflict in Myanmar as a genocide, and became the first country to do so in September, 2018. The weight that ‘genocide’ carries with it and the Canadian government’s recognition of this particular case as a genocide, allowed concerned groups to pressure the Canadian government into taking further action.
As a result, Canada has called on the UN security council to refer the Rohingya genocide to the International Criminal Court among other efforts. Canada’s work in this direction was not enough however, and the Gambia managed to take this case to the International Court of Justice before Canada. Canada came under pressure and recognized the Rohingya genocide to uphold its international image, but the weight of the word ‘genocide’ in shaping international relations is both a blessing and a curse. Canada’s recognition was a step forward in that it urged the international community, including the UN, to pay attention. However, its reliance on the UN to proceed with this case (as genocide is a major concern in international relations discourse around the world), delayed Canada’s ability to take action because this reliance brought with it all the pathologies of IOs.
In contrast to Canada’s role, China has continued to support Myanmar, brought forward the argument that Myanmar has not done anything wrong, and refrained from using the term ‘genocide.’ As an emerging power in the world, China is an international player that has different interests than western powers. This has caused emerging trends in global governance like the liberal social purpose of global governance taking a back seat, existing multilateral institutions like the UN facing a deadlock, and global governance becoming more fragmented through new institutions being created and western dominance lessening. China’s powerful role in international relations, as well as its proximity to Myanmar have led it to being severely criticised in the West for not influencing Myanmar towards progress on human rights. The term genocide is so powerful, that China refuses to use it.
Labelling the atrocities in Myanmar as a ‘genocide’ would be a direct attack on the Myanmar government, and put China at risk of losing its strategic partnership with the nation. China has an intention to develop peaceful, political, economic and security ties to Myanmar. One of the key Chinese policies which prevents it from recognizing the Rohingya Genocide, is to give no political recognition, economic assistance or military support to armed ethnic minority groups within Myanmar. Furthermore, China has not stuck to the norms around R2P and other UN agreements. While it has accepted R2P, China still insists on the principles of respect for sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other nations. Finally, reports have been released of China’s own oppression towards their Uighur Muslim Minority, which prevents it from discussing Myanmar’s atrocities without coming under further questioning for its own actions. All of these factors have combined to influence China’s decision not to recognize the Rohingya Genocide.
In the seventy-six years that the word ‘genocide’ has been used, it has developed into a term in international relations that carries a heavy burden with it, which many governments and IOs are not willing to take on. It reveals the lack of action that took place until the conflict escalated to the level of genocide, while also forcing those who recognize conflicts as ‘genocide’ to protect the vulnerable populations from further harm. It was created as a result of the Holocaust, with the promise to protect all future generations from similar situations of extreme violence and victimization. However, when the Rwandan genocide took place years later, countries around the world were left wondering how they could have let such a terrible conflict take place. In response to this, all member states of the UN reaffirmed their goals by creating lofty agreements such as R2P, and emphasized their responsibility to protect all citizens around the world from genocide, among other atrocities. Yet, these same member states remained silent when 10,000 Rohingya died in the genocide that took place in Myanmar in 2016.
There is a pattern of ignorance, and denial when atrocity crimes such as genocide take place, and a hesitancy to use the word ‘genocide’ because of its weight in history, and the power it has to force governments and IOs to act. The varying responses to the Rohingya genocide, have revealed how the word ‘genocide’ has immense power, but its limitations lie in the resulting fear and hesitancy with which it is used. The ability of this one word to create both a sense of responsibility and a fear of burden among the international community, has made it clear that words have the power to begin important discussions in international relations about moral values that many governments and IOs can agree upon. However, whether these governments and IOs act upon these shared values when it matters most varies greatly in different contexts around the world.
Sources:
Barnett, Michael N. and Duvall, Raymond. Eds. Power in Global Governance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Barnett, Michael N. and Finnemore, Martha. “The Politics, Power and Pathologies of
International Organizations.” International Organization 53, no. 4 (Autumn 1999): 710-720. https://www-jstor-org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/pdf/2601307.pdf?acceptTC=true.
Burke, Adam. “New Political Space, Old Tensions: History, Identity and Violence in Rakhine
State, Myanmar.” Contemporary South East Asia 38 No. 2 (2016): 258-83.
Chen, Zheng. “China and the Responsibility to Protect.” Journal of Contemporary China, 25, no.
101 (April 2016): 690.
“Data leak reveals how China ‘brainwashes’ Uighurs in prison camps,” BBC News, November
General Assembly resolution 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome. A/RES/60/1 (24 October
2005). available from https://peacemaker.un.org/node/95.
Harris, Kathleen. “Rohingya refugee thanks Canada 'from the bottom of our hearts' after
genocide motion.” CBC News, September 25, 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rohingya-camp-canada-motion-1.4836078.
Kirby, Jen. “UN report: Myanmar generals should be prosecuted for genocide against the
Rohingya.” Vox, August 28, 2018.
e.
Li, Chenyang. and Lye, Liang F. “China’s Policies Towards Myanmar: A Successful Model for
Dealing with the Myanmar Issue?” China 7, no. 2 (Sep 2009): 256-263.
Moses, Dirk A. "Genocide." Australian Humanities Review no. 55 (November 2013): 1-9.
“Myanmar: What Sparked latest violence in Rakhine?” BBC News, September 19, 2017.
Ochab, Ewelina. “The Gambia Is Taking Myanmar To Court.” Forbes, November 12, 2019.
Pensky, Max. “UN Report Documents Genocide against Rohingya: What now?” The
Conversation, September 5, 2018. https://theconversation.com/un-report-documents-genocide-against-rohingya-what-now-102555.
Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has declined. New York:
Penguin Books, 2012.
Power, Samantha. “Bystanders to Genocide.” The Atlantic, September 2001.
Shawki, Noha. “Civil Society, Middle Powers, and R2P: An Analysis of Canada’s Response to
the Crisis in Darfur.” Peace Research, 40, No. 1 (2008): 24-25.
Stahn, Carsten. “Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?” The
American Journal of International Law 101, no.1 (2007): 102. www.jstor.org/stable/4149826.
Stephan, Matthew D. “Emerging Powers and Emerging Trends in Global Governance.” Global
Governance, 23, no. 3 (Jul, 2017): 483-496.
United Nations General Assembly, 72nd Session, Plenary, Meetings Coverage of the 99th and
100th meetings, 25 June, 2018, available from https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/ga12031.doc.htm
Wright, Tessa. “Canada urged to take international action on Rohingya Genocide.” Global News,
コメント