UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL - UNHRC

www.bgmun.pk

Beaconhouse Gujrat Model United Nations II

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL - UNHRC

STUDY GUIDE

TOPIC AREA: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IN MYANMAR

CHAIR: AITZAZ ANSARCO-CHAIR: MADIHA JAVED

1

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

Beaconhouse Gujrat Model United Nations II United Nations Human Rights Council

STUDY GUIDE Topic Area: Human Rights Violation in Myanmar

Introduction of the United Nations Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system

responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and

for addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them. It has

the ability to discuss all thematic human rights issues and situations that require its attention

throughout the year. It meets at the UN Office at Geneva. The Council is made up of 47 United

Nations Member States which are elected by the UN General Assembly.

Brief History

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, established in 1946 and reporting to the

Economic and Social Council, was the key United Nations intergovernmental body responsible

for human rights until it was replaced by the Human Rights Council in 2006 by resolution

60/251. In addition to assuming mandates and responsibilities previously entrusted to the

Commission, the newly created Council, reporting directly to the General Assembly, has

expanded mandates. These include making recommendations to the General Assembly for

further developing international law in the field of human rights, and undertaking a Universal

Periodic Review of the fulfilment of each State of its human rights obligations and commitments.

In 2007 the Council adopted its ''Institution-building package'' to guide its work and set up its

procedures and mechanisms.

Definition

violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, male development, or deprivation", although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word. This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).

Country Profile – Myanmar

A country in Southeast Asia, Myanmar is a predominantly Buddhist state, bordering the Bay of

Bengal, India, Bangladesh, China, Laos and Thailand. Myanmar’s post-colonial legacy is

characterized by an oppressive military junta, which ruled from 1962 to 2011. The slow shift in

2

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

liberalization of the country’s political system was exacerbated by the human rights activist Aung

San Suu Kyi, who was the opposition leader within Myanmar and actively fought for a liberal

democracy to be paved in Myanmar. The military government suppressed all manner of dissent,

sparking international condemnation and sanctions. The dominance of the largest ethnic group

within Myanmar, the Burman, has proliferated many rebellions and movements by minorities,

alleging their suppression and the manifestation of structural violence against them. A gradual

peace process has begun, since a draft ceasefire deal in 2015. In the first democratic election since

military rule began, the military handed over power to a nominally civilian government in 2011. The

ensuing liberalization process saw reductions in the regulations of media, although the state still

retains control of the main broadcasters and self-censorship is still common within the country. In

2015, Aung San Suu Kyi won a democratic election to become the de facto leader of Myanmar,

although constitutional limitations prevent her from formally acceding to the post.

Background to the Topic

The Rohingya are an ethnic Muslim minority group, living primarily in Myanmar’s western Rakhine

state, practicing a variant of Sunni Islam. Despite having historical ties to Myanmar through Muslim

settlers since the 15th century, the post-colonial governments of Myanmar have denied recognition

to the Rohingya as one of Myanmar’s native ethnicities. The Rohingya are instead considered to be

illegal Bengali immigrants, denying them citizenship. The primary legislation denying the Rohingya

of citizenship was introduced by the military junta through the 1982 Citizenship Law.

persecution of Muslims in Myanmar

There is a history of persecution of Muslims in Myanmar that continues to the present day. Myanmar is a Buddhist majority country, with a significant Muslim minority. While Muslims served in the government of Prime Minister U Nu (1948–63), the situation changed with the 1962 Burmese coup d'état. While a few continued to serve, most Muslims were excluded from positions in the government and army In 1982, the government introduced regulations that denied citizenship to anyone who could not prove Burmese ancestry from before 1823. This disenfranchised many Muslims in Myanmar, even though they had lived in Myanmar for several generations.

The largest Muslim group in Myanmar are the Rohingya people; the Rohingyas have been the

most persecuted group under Myanmar's military regime. The UN states that the Rohingyas are

one of the most persecuted groups in the world. Since 1948, successive governments have

carried out 13 military operations against the Rohingya

Statelessness of the Rohingya

The lack of citizenship provided unto the Rohingya creates an internationally recognized position of

statelessness. Statelessness denies fundamental individual freedoms to the Rohingya, from

freedom of movement, to other civic rights such as freedom of religion, access to education and

legal recourse from the judiciary for crimes perpetrated against them. Persecution and violence

against the Rohingya is bolstered by extremist nationalist sentiments.

3

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

Political Economy

Attempts to provide the Rohingya with some manner of citizenship and recognition by the state of

Myanmar has been faced with stern opposition by extremist groups. The further depth of the

systemic discrimination against the Rohingya by the state, such as restrictions on marriage and

family planning, have institutionalized the persecution of the ethnic minority. The dispersion of the

Rohingya in Myanmar is contributory to the violence perpetrated against them. The state of

Rakhine, one of the poorest and least developed areas of Myanmar is home to around a million

Rohingya, an approximate third of the district’s population. The political economy of the crisis is

therefore an important facet to be considered. Rakhine, where 78% of households lives under the

poverty threshold (World Bank, 2016), has few employment opportunities and weak infrastructure,

factors that place the religious divide between the Rohingya and the majority Buddhists into stark

relief.

Ethnic Cleansing

Additionally, others claim acts perpetrated against the Rohingya amount to ethnic cleansing, a claim that was backed by a Human Rights Watch report in April of 2013. The report cited Arakan State political and religious leaders as having provoked attacks on the Rohingya in order to at a minimum displace them from the areas where they had been living, specifically those areas that were comprised of a Buddhist majority, and at a maximum to entirely remove their presence from the state (Human Rights Watch, 2013). The term ethnic cleansing, which is not a formal legal term, first appeared in describing acts carried out during the conflicts in former Yugoslavia. The UN Security Council appointed a Commission of Experts in 1992 to review breaches of humanitarian law committed on the former Yugoslavian territory. This report defined ethnic cleansing as “rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area,” an act which as such contravenes international law (Final Report of The Commission of Experts Established Pursuant To S/RES/780 (1992), 1994). While the means through which ethnic cleansing20 is done are akin to crimes against humanity, the objective for doing so is to remove a certain population from a given territory thus „cleansing‟ it. This year, the OHCHR concluded that a “purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas”. The report stated that groups were targeted based on their ethnicity and religion and forcibly removed through violence and killings, as well as, by destruction of their homes and religious buildings. It approximated that 66, 000 had fled from lands they had inhabited for generations (OHCHR, 2017: 43). Even in when observed in isolation, ethnic cleansing involves horrific acts and consequences. However, the implications are magnified if, as Professor Penny Green of International State Crime Initiative (ISCI) suggests, ethnic cleansing is viewed as a step in the “process of genocide” (Economist, 2015: 6).

Genocide Often referred to as „the crime of all crimes, ‟genocide was first codified into international law with the adoption of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as: “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious

4

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children

of the group to another group” (UNGA, 1948). The definition provided in the Convention emphasises „intent‟. Intent remains one of the most difficult aspects of genocide to verify, as intent is most often not apparent until after genocidal acts have already occurred. Similar to ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, genocide is also typically carried out based on a State or organisational plan or policy (UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, 2014: 19). The UN has yet to label the attacks in Myanmar as genocide, and the Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has cautioned against applying the term genocide to describe actions against the Rohingya in Myanmar (BBC, 2016). Nonetheless, many academics and experts on genocide, are less hesitant about the use of the term in labelling the Rohingya‟s situation. A new report by the International State Crime Initiative (ISCI) at the Queen Mary University of London states that “The Rohingya face the final stages of genocide” (Green and MacManus, 2015:99). This is further supported by findings from the Lowenstein Clinic at Yale Law School, who looked at the case of the Rohingya in line with the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as well as other international law precedent on the subject. The 65-page report‟s findings pointed to the existence of “strong evidence” that Myanmar is carrying out genocide against their Rohingya a population. In their report the clinic appealed to the UNHRC to lead an independent inquest regarding the allegations of genocide against the Rohingya (Law.yale.edu, 2015). The organisation Genocide Watch, one of the leading international NGOs on genocide prediction and prevention has Myanmar place on genocide alert and lists the country in Stage 9, the extermination stage.

Present State of Affairs

The United Nations has called upon Myanmar‟s leader Aung San Suu Kyi “to reflect on the situation and…to listen to her „inner voice‟ and speak directly to the people of Myanmar, asking them to rise above their ethnic, religious and other difference and to advance human dignity, harmony and mutual cooperation between all communities” (Un.org, 2016). World leaders have a duty to affirm R2P. Myanmar‟s progresses towards democratization, along with the possibility of large investment opportunities, have led to many countries‟ hesitancy in condemning the state‟s actions towards the Rohingya. This same progress led the US to lift its sanctions last year (Matsui, 2017). The chance to curb China‟s ever expanding regional presence also provides ample incentive (Ahmed, 2015). Despite a past emphasis on non-interference with the domestic issues of member states, ASEAN has decided that it will not stand in the way if Myanmar‟s domestic matters are discussed at any future international meetings. Previous proposals to address the situation have ranged from “strengthening diplomatic sanctions, consideration of the Burmese government by the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, enacting a global arms embargo and economic sanctions, and referring the military leaders to the ICC (Applying the Responsibility to Protect to Burma/Myanmar*, 2010:4). The UN General Assembly‟s most recent resolution on the “Situation of human rights in Myanmar” (Resolution 70/233) registered instances of discrimination of minorities and human rights violations, citing the Rohingya as victims of these acts. The resolution also described the political disenfranchisement of the Rohingya and voiced concern over the recent race and religion legislation and as well as the 1982 Citizenship Law. Moreover, the resolution reminded Myanmar of its international human rights law commitments, referring to previous resolutionswhich also cited its lack of compliance (UNGA, 2015:1-4). The Human Rights Council (HRC) has similarly also addressed the discriminatory actions and of Myanmar towards the Rohingya

5

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

and its other minorities at multiple sessions in recent years. It also and called on them to put a halt to actions that provoked violence against these groups. The most recent examples thereof are the passing of resolution 29/21 on the “Situation of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar” and resolution 31/24 on the “Situation of human rights in Myanmar” (UNHCR, 2015; UNHCR 2016). The HRC continues to scrutinise the situation through its Special Rapporteur, who examines conditions in the country and shares his/her conclusions in a report. The most recent report (A/HRC/34/67) was presented at the thirty-fourth HRC session in February and March 2017 (UNHCR, 2017). These reports highlight not only what human rights abuses are taking place but also what steps can be taken to reform institutions and legislation and prevent other violations and abuses, as well as any other measures necessary to improve the situation (OHCHR 2016: 16-19). The OHCHR has attempted to set up offices in Myanmar to more closely monitor conditions on the ground. Thus far innumerable obstacles have been places in their path by the country‟s government.

Chronology of the Violence

In June 2012, tensions between the Rakhine Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslims rose following the

rape and murder of a Rakhine woman, which was responded to by the killing of ten Muslims. A riot

and arson attacks by the Rohingya in the Muangdaw Township lead to a state of emergency being

declared in Rakhine, enabling military involvement to quell the conflict. Alleged arbitrary violence

by the military and ethnic Rakhine against the Rohingya is said to have contributed to the fleeing

and displacement of Rohingya from townships in the district. A resurgence in the fighting, with the

violence between the Buddhists and the Rohingya causing the total displaced to increase to

100,000. The initial violence against the Rohingya diffused to include all Muslims across the state.

The riots during this period were alleged to be organized and efficient, the hallmarks of a

coordinated attempt at the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya. The massacre of seventy Rohingya on

23rd October 2012 in the village of Yan Thei was considered symbolic of this act. 2013 saw a spate of

anti-Muslim riots throughout central and eastern Myanmar. The murder of a Buddhist monk in

March exacerbated tensions, causing the ensuing retaliation by the rioters to raze houses, shops

and mosques belonging to the Muslims. In a number of the riots, it was observed that the police did

not intervene in the assault and killings of Muslims within townships.

Sexual Assault

Human Rights Watch received credible reports that soldiers subjected women to invasive body

searches, non-consensual touching, and sexual assault at the compound in Maung Nu.

Abuses by armed groups

While many ethnic minority civilians see armed groups as their protectors, they also suffer

abuses from these groups.Various armed groups use forced conscription, including of children,

and impose “taxes” on villagers and market sellers, extorting cash and goods from communities

that are already vulnerable due to the conflict.Amnesty International documented a total of 45

6

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

abductions of civilians committed by two ethnic armed groups in the course of fighting in

northern Shan state. People were typically taken in groups. Months later, their families still have

no information about their whereabouts, raising fears about summary killings.

The Contemporary Crisis

The constant clashes between the Rakhine Buddhists and the Rohingya since June 2012 had led to

the mass exodus of the Rohingya via boat from Myanmar in 2015. The ensuing refugee crisis led to

a deeper examination of the treatment of the Rohingya by the state. On the 9th of October 2016,

armed militants attacked a number of border police posts in the district of Rakhine, leading to the

death of a number of policemen. In response to this, the military began a concerted effort to

convict those responsible. The degree of arbitrary extrajudicial killings and brutality against civilians

by the military led to the death of hundreds of Rohingya. The Myanmar military is accused of an

organized and condoned effort to drive the Rohingya out of the district of Rakhine. The reported

brutality and scale of violence against the Rohingya led to the resurgence of the allegations of

ethnic cleansing and genocide perpetrated by the government. Reports of massive and systemic

acts of violence, by intergovernmental organizations such as the Human Rights Watch (HRW), have

given credence to these claims of genocide.

The Exodus of Refugees

The scale of the refugee exodus escaping persecution in Myanmar reached a high of almost 65,000

fleeing to Bangladesh between October 2016 and January 2017. Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia

are also home to several tens of thousands of refugees, with only a tenth of Bangladesh’s refugees

being registered. The condition of the refugee camps further leads to many refugees using more

dangerous means of travel to escape the violence.

A Responsibility to Protect?

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a concept that the United Nations has adopted following the

adoption of the United Nations World Summit Outcome Document in 2005. Whilst the United

Nations Charter protects the sovereignty of states and preserves the fundamental right of non-

intervention in the domestic affairs of states, the R2P provides a means of legitimacy for

intervention. The global principle of the obligation of states to protect their citizens from the risk of

genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing is thus extended to protect all

citizens from such atrocities. The R2P has three pillars which stipulates the responsibilities states

have towards the citizenry. These pillars were founded in a 2001 report by the International

Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The question of whether the ongoing

crisis in Myanmar constitutes a Responsibility to Protect, initiated by the international community

in defence of the Rohingya, is a deeply introspective one. On the one hand, the systemic

7

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

discrimination and organized violence perpetrated against the Rohingya is reminiscent of

precursors to genocide as happened in Rwanda in 1994 and in Germany in the inter-war period of

the late 1930s. On the other hand, the scale of the violence initiated in Myanmar is far less than

that of the above examples. Legitimacy in action must also be tempered by the need to safeguard

the principles of non-intervention, and not establish a precedent of intervention for even the

smallest degree of violence against the citizenry.

Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) The term non-governmental organization or NGO was first referenced in 1945 in Article 71of the UN Charter (1945). NGOs are also known as a non-profits, charities, or voluntary sector Organizations, and exist with the aim of achieving common interests of a group. They can be a local, national or international organizations. NGOs can take on many forms, such as humanitarian, advocacy, and emergency and technical assistance roles, to name a few, and are often organize around a particular issue area, “such as human rights, the environment or health” (Ngo.bham.ac.uk, 2017). NGOs have some formalized structure with a budget and professionalized staff, are non-profits, and are accountable to their members and donors. They have some degree of independence, as they are separate from governments and business, thus filling the gap between these two entities. Thus, their aims usually relate to concerns regarding the welfare of the larger public or groups within societies (Ngo.bham.ac.uk, 2017). The NGOs Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, along with many others, continue to watch the country closely for any new or ongoing human rights abuses and publishing country reports and press releases with this information (World Report 2016-Burma, 2016; Amnesty International, 2016). Human Rights Watch also attempts to speak directly to leaders of Myanmar, as evidenced by their Executive Director Brad Adams‟ 2016 letter to the recently elected government officials. The letter outlined HRW‟s main concerns, such as necessary institutional and legal reforms to tackle human rights violations, women‟s rights and land rights. HRW also encourages other Member States to apply pressure to Myanmar to address human rights abuses. In one such instance ,HRW‟s UK Director David Mepham, recently called for Britain to “support an independent international investigation into the violations in Rakhine” (Mepham, 2017). NGOs often communicate directly with governments of states where human right abuses or violations are taking place, as well as with other countries that may bear influence on the situation. They also often address various UN bodies and other intergovernmental organizations to advocate for the cause they represent and to provide testimony. At the July 2016 meeting of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Amnesty International briefed the committee on the ongoing human rights violations against Rohingya women, sharing their observations and recommendations with the committee.

What Is UN doing

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the UN Security Council called on Myanmar's government to end its military campaign against the Rohingya.

The 15-member Security Council met behind closed doors on Wednesday, at the request of Sweden and Britain, to discuss the crisis for the second time since it began and agreed to publicly condemn the situation.

8

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

Speaking before the meeting, Antonio Guterres called the situation for the Rohingya refugees "catastrophic" and "completely unacceptable", acknowledging that the minority group was being ethnically cleansed in the Buddhist-majority nation.

Conclusion Aung San Suu Kyi‟s National League for Democracy (NLD) party has only been leading the government for a little over a year now. While they face many different challenges the continuing human rights violations must come to an end. The committee may decide to focus on the nature of the crimes taking place against the Rohingya in Myanmar thus assisting them to determine the best course of action. One thing is certain; however, the situation thus far has not managed to resolve itself. We have seen far too many examples of what occurs when the international community simply stands by without acting, as in the case of the Holocaust, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia.

POINTS A RESOLUTION MUST ADDRESS

Due to the relatively little international engagement of this refugee crisis matter, all points of resolutions are open for consideration. However, when writing your resolutions keep in mind these following points. The resolution should aim to achieve:

-A solution that reduces the number of refugees by either addressing the Burmese government to revoke age old legal stances on the Rohingyas rights to citizenship and other day to day operations throughout society or methods of effective division of refugees amongst the neighboring countries so as to not strain financial agencies of any one country in their attempt to reintegrate Rohingya refugees into their country -A solution which addresses the treatment of asylum seekers -Structuring of rehabilitation centers and asylums

Questions to be Considered

1. How far does the 1982 Citizenship Law adhere to accepted norms of human rights law? Is there a

need for review?

2. What should be the legal status of the Rohingya? Are there other states with a stronger

obligation to provide security and constitutional rights to the Rohingya?

3. Is the right to national self-determination absent to the Rohingya? Why?

4. What are the means of quelling dissent and the rise of extremist nationalism within Myanmar?

5. How far does the ethnic divide have a socio-political dynamic to it? Is there purely an ethnic

interpretation for the violence?

6. Is a solution sustainable, within the political economy of the state of Rakhine?

9

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – BGMUN II

www.bgmun.pk

7. Is intervention a necessity to alleviate the suffering of the Rohingya? Where does the criterion for

intervention arise from?

8. Is intervention a clear solution given the regional dynamics of Southeast Asia?

9. What is the role of ASEAN in the provision of a solution to the crisis? How much of the

responsibility in enforcement of a resolution is theirs?

10. Does the Responsibility to Protect arise in this instance? Do the conditions in Myanmar’s

Rakhine state satisfy the three pillars under the ICISS report?

11. What of the aftermath? Does the suppression of religious extremism in Myanmar pave way for

the stoking of tensions in other parts of the region?

12. What role can intervention satisfy, that the civil society within Myanmar cannot already?

Useful Links

http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/interview-the-stateless-rohingya/

http://www.globalr2p.org/regions/myanmar_burma

http://www.irinnews.org/feature/2013/05/03/activists-call-review-myanmar%E2%80%99s-

citizenshiplaw

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/rohingya-migrant-crisis

https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/04/22/all-you-can-do-pray/crimes-against-humanity-andethnic-

cleansing-rohingya-muslims

https://youtu.be/HmO7351fNFQ

10