Ever since the establishment of nation-states, it has been clear that states bear the responsibility to protect their citizens from any unnecessary harm. However self-evident this may seem, unfortunately this is not always the case. Stemming out of this idea the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) coined the notion of the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P)” (ICISS, 2001)The concept has been widely recognized in international law, and it embodies the responsibility to protect citizens from ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide by both the national government and, should the government fail to do this, the international community (Scheffer, 2009). The ICISS report identifies the responsibility to prevent atrocities from happening in the first place as the most important element of R2P, but the responsibility to intervene when this prevention fails and to rebuild the community after an intervention are similarly crucial (Dunne, 2013).
However fairylike this idea may seem, it is not always as effective as initially hoped. A good example of this is the current situation in Rakhine state in western Myanmar, where the Muslim minority of the Rohingya has undergone decades of human rights violations (Parnini, 2013). Along with claims of ethnic cleansing and statelessness, there have even been allegations of genocide (Kingston, 2015). The regime of military junta has resulted in an exodus into neighbouring countries. Even though many people know of the situation, the international community has not yet intervened. In this paper, the aim is to answer the following research question: ‘How does the international community bear the responsibility to protect (R2P) regarding the stateless Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar?’.
Human rights violations against the Rohingya arise from both structural and direct violence (Kingston, 2015). The structural violence involves discriminatory laws such as the 1982 Citizenship Act that officially denied the Rohingya Muslims of citizenship, declaring them stateless (Parnini, Othman & Ghazali, 2013). As a direct result of this statelessness, Rohingya are deprived of certain human rights such as the right to employment and education, that official citizens of Myanmar do have access to (Kingston, 2015). Direct violence against the stateless minority includes torture, murder, systemic rape and burning of homes and villages (Beyrer, 2017). Human rights activists have linked the violence to ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (Kingston, 2015).When asked about whether the situation of the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar could be considered a case of ethnic cleansing, the United Nations Secretary-General Guterres answered that “When one-third of the Rohingya population had to flee the country, can you find a better word to describe it?” (Al-Jazeera, 2017). Due to all this violence, the Rohingya Muslims barely have a choice but to seek refuge abroad. However, foreign governments such as the one in Bangladesh often tend to see refugees as a threat to national security and as a result of this, temporary refugee camps have been set up to create a division between the incoming refugees and the Bangladeshi population (Parnini, 2013).
When looking at the issue from a national perspective, it is important to first address the actions on behalf of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) in response to decades of discrimination and structural violence. For example, in 2016, the ARSA attacked and killed Myanmar border officers and several soldiers in an effort to retaliate against the state (Edroos, 2017). In response, the Myanmar army reacted to this attack by increasing violence against the entire Rohingya Muslim population severely. International human rights law undoubtedly indicates that states should respond to armed groups (such as the ARSA) and to terror attacks. This response should however be in proportion to the actual threat (Beyrer, 2017). In this particular case, Myanmar’s military forces clearly did not act proportionally, by retaliating against the entire population (and not just the terror group), and these actions should have repercussions. According to the German philosopher Thomas Pogge, human rights violations are worst when committed by official agents from governments and he would agree that the government of Myanmar is clearly exhibiting official disrespect against the Rohingya Muslim minority (Pogge, 1995).
After extensive discussion on the Responsibility to Protect, the ICISS made it clear that states have the primary responsibility to protect their citizens’ human rights. This responsibility includes protection against ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide (Dunne, 2013). However, they stressed that “where a state manifestly failed to do this, the international community would now share a collective responsibility to respond” (Dunne, 2013). In the case of the Myanmar government versus the Rohingya Muslims, there is plenty of proof that the state has failed to protect their citizens’ human rights, thus implying that the international community has the responsibility to intervene. Given the “Western optimism about government reforms and the fact that both China and Russia have blocked intervention in the past” (Kingston, 2015) however, it seems unlikely that the international community will intervene militarily any time soon. Nevertheless, the United Nations Security Council should speak to the humanitarian crisis and under international law, has the responsibility to determine whether an investigation should be launched into the possibility of genocide in Rakhine State (Beyrer, 2017). Moreover, the international community should oversee the situation and respond to the violation of human rights by utilizing the accessible resources to prevent any further violence (Kingston, 2015).
A human rights theory that could possibly help enhance understanding of the issue of the Rohingya Muslims is the recognition theory of rights. This theory states that in order to establish a moral relationship between different actors, mutual recognition is key. According to Boucher “Recognition both makes and acknowledges rights, and therefore recognition is a necessary condition” (Boucher, 2011). The recognition theory of rights explains how states establish a morally responsible relationship with their citizens. In the case of Myanmar violating rights of the Rohingya Muslims, it is clear that the state of Myanmar simply does not recognize the rights of the minority, explaining the lack of a moral relationship. The state of Myanmar has always seen the Muslim minority as foreigners, stating that they do not belong in Myanmar. In fact, Myanmar quite literally disregarded any acknowledgement of the rights of the Muslim minority by legally not recognizing them as citizens in the Citizenship Act of 1982 (Parnini et al., 2013). The recognition theory can help increase understanding of the disregard for human rights by the Myanmar government.
In conclusion, the Rohingya Muslim population has suffered from both direct and structural violence. They have been declared stateless and as a result have been deprived of many of their human rights. The Myanmar has responded disproportionally to acts of retaliation and has shown official disrespect for human rights. This lack of an ethical relationship between the Rohingya Muslims and the Myanmar government can be explained using the recognition theory of rights, seeing as the government does not regard the Rohingya Muslims as citizens and does not recognize their rights.
The international community has the responsibility to protect people from extreme human rights violations. This responsibility to prevent instances of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity etcetera in Rakhine state has clearly not been upheld by both the state and the international community. According to international law, it is now up to the international community to react. Since military intervention should only be used as a last resort, the international community bears the responsibility to launch an investigation into the crisis and do whatever they can with whatever means available to prevent any more violence against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, as they are obliged to under international law in a case like this.