How the USA contributed to the genocide of the Rohingya

One of the reasons that the USA considers itself to be exceptional is that it looks at the best of itself, and ignores the worst - a flaw common to almost all other nations (and people), including my own. (Germany may be an exception to this, as it has been forced to look at its worst as a result of the Holocaust – although that soul searching has not expunged the evil from all of its people; my nation has yet to properly address, amongst other matters, the horrors that were committed against the original inhabitants of this land – people who had, for tens of thousands of years, an advanced and mostly sustainable civilisation.)

In the case of the USA, the end of World War Part One gives a good example of this.

On the one hand, their President at that time, Woodrow Wilson, expounded an idealistic and admirable goal – world peace without, in effect, too many empires …

On the other hand, factional politics and the arrogant trivialisation of the concept of “American exceptionalism” down to a belief that accountability should not apply to the USA led to, effectively, the deliberate sabotage of the concept and realisation of a League of Nations – much as the evil and divisive Senator McCarthy undermined, almost to the point of sabotage, the United Nations in the 1950s when his investigations effectively removed many talented people from that organisation.

With great power comes great duty to “do good” … and an equal duty to be accountable.

There have been times when the USA has undoubtedly done “great good” – the Marshall Plan after World War Part Two, some of President Kennedy’s initiatives and actions (e.g., this, this, this, this, this, this, and this) and his inspiring speeches (e.g., this), standing up for South Korea during the Korean War, and some of the advances it has been behind – such as the Green Revolution.

There have also been exemplary occasions of accountability – such as the holding of former President Nixon to account which began with the Watergate scandal, Contragate, and (arguably) the response to the GFC.

There have also been times of short-sightedness and abuses – such as extending the duration and scope of the Korean War by invading the North, the Viêt Nám War, financial ideology that led to crisis in Russia, the GFC and the worst of the World Bank, and the rampant social injustice inside the USA, including racism (racism and civil rights generally were notable weaknesses – amongst others - of Kennedy’s presidency).

The USA’s misplaced belief that it was so exceptional that it didn’t have to be accountable led to it refusing to be part of any international court that could put its soldiers on trial – no matter how many abuses they may have committed (e.g., here and here - and I am aware of similar crimes possibly committed by my nation [e.g., here, and here - and an uncle who fought in New Guinea in the Second World War talked of not bringing back prisoners), and thus it backed  out of the ICC (see Chapter 10 of Geoffrey Robertson’s “Crimes Against Humanity: the Struggle for Global Justice”, 3^rd Ed. [I haven’t seen the later edition], The New Press, New York, 2006 [first pub. Allen Lane, 1999]; ISBN-13 978-1-59558-071-9; Amazon), and, as a result of that and other politics, the ICC is only applicable to nations that are members of it – which excludes both the USA and Burma (I will not use the term Myanmar until that nation is a true democracy).

Thus, the mechanism for holding Burma to account for its genocide against the Rohingya people (actually, there is an argument that this is the second genocide, with the first being when they were driven out by the abuses after Burma’s 1785 invasion and annexation of Aurukun) of taking them before the ICC has been removed - and thus the tile of this post.

Had the USA been less intransigent, there is a possibility (albeit a very, very, SMALL possibility) that the remit of the ICC may have held nations such as Burma to account more readily.

So, as the situation currently is, the main accountability of Burma is under the 1948 Genocide Convention, which has reached the status of customary international law and sets initial responsibility with “a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed” (i.e., Burma, which is still denying that it has done any such thing) or “by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction”. As a back-up: “Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III” – which, as I understand it, means the International Court of Justice, although I am unclear who can initiate such proceedings.

I had thought about whether the situation is a threat to international peace and stability (which would allow the UN to - under Chapter VII of the Charter - take action): it could be argued to creating a risk of instability through the impact on Bangladesh, but that is a bit tenuous.

The provisions of the Responsibility to Protect  principle are clearly being breached, but, since the 1990s intervention in the Balkans (which was actually prior to formalisation of the R2P principle), that has been  toothless (although it has led to an excellent source of information on risks).

That leaves us with the Genocide Convention ...

In terms of taking action as an individual:

• I’ve written to the ICC, asking if the Prosecutor would initiate a preliminary investigation under Article 15 Section (1) (“The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court”) of the Rome Statute, with a reply confirming that they couldn’t;
• I’ve written to my nation’s government, respectfully urging them to disengage with the Burmese military (no reply or even an acknowledgement); and
• I am now considering writing to the UN Secretary-General, who, under Chapter XV of the UN Charter, “may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security” (Article 99), and raising both that, the Genocide Convention, and – in a hope to embarrass the world into action - the currently tattered status of the R2P commitment. Unfortunately, because I am not an official representative of a member nation, that will probably not get anywhere (but I will try, via the special advisors email, given the limitations of the only contact form I could find) … so … what nation (I’ll try mine, but have considerable doubts) will have enough integrity to raise the issue of the current genocide of the Rohingya with the UN? Perhaps Germany, or one of the Scandinavian nations?

Just in case anyone else is interested, my current draft emails are below.If I can work out a nation likely to make a referral to the UN, I'll write to them as well ...

Draft email to the UN:

To:

His Excellency António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations

CC:

   Mr Adama Dieng, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide

   Mr Ivan Šimonović, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect

Your Excellency,

Re: The Current Apparent Genocide by Myanmar Against the Rohingya

I, and many other people in the world, hold grave concerns over what is happening to the Rohingya people of Myanmar, which does appear to be genocide - or, at the very least, ethnic cleansing. (I am particularly concerned at the possible risk of a breach of the principle of non-refoulement in the recent agreement to return the Rohingya to a nation which does not admit their existence, and from which they are still fleeing.)

I am aware that these events are outside the remit of the International Criminal Court, but, as I understand it, the 1948 Genocide Convention and the commitment to Responsibility to Protect contained in A/RES/60/1 (although I am aware many have concerns over limited application of that principle) would apply (and perhaps also Chapter VII of the UN Charter, given the potentially destabilising impact of these events on Bangladesh).

In light of that, has any preventative or responsive action against Myanmar been considered by the United Nations (including the Security Council), or proposed by any Member State or yourself (under Section XV)? (I am aware of the outstanding aid that has been given to Rohingya refugees, including via the Central Emergency Response Fund, under incredibly difficult conditions and timelines.)

I appreciate that you are extremely busy, but any advice (that can be given without endangering any “backroom” negotiations) would be appreciated – or, perhaps more appropriately, a public statement on the actions which are available.

Yours respectfully

 Draft email to Members of Parliament in my nation:

To:

The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, MP, Prime Minister

The Hon. Julie Bishop, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Hon. Bill Shorten, MP, Leader of the Opposition

Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs

Dear Members of Parliament,

On top of the largest number of displaced people since the end of World War Two, the world is currently facing an event which is either the worst genocide since Rwanda, or at the very least the worst ethnic cleansing since the Balkan Wars in the 1990s: the displacement of the Rohingya, who are fleeing violence in Myanmar.

I am aware that Australia has provided aid, and I have taken advantage of the current pledge to match donations.

I consider, however, that the situation is too catastrophic for our assistance to be limited to aid.

I am aware that these events are outside the remit of the International Criminal Court, but, as I understand it, the 1948 Genocide Convention and the commitment to Responsibility to Protect contained in A/RES/60/1 would apply, and perhaps also Chapter VII of the UN Charter, given the potentially destabilising impact of these events on the region.

Has any consideration been given to a formal referral of this matter to the United Nations or its Security Council?

Yours faithfully,