The Albatross around Myanmar’s Neck
“Even where there are high profile cases which pressure the military to take action, trials are held in secrecy, any punishment is often secret, and it is not known if soldiers convicted of these type of crimes even serve their sentences. An approach like this from the top of the military encourages soldiers to feel that they can get away with such crimes.”
The murder of a Karen woman by two soliders of the Myanmar military in Mutraw District, Karen State, is just the latest in a very long line of severe human rights violations in which the perepatrators are able to act with impunity. Despite symbolic actions that are supposed to indicate that the military will take responsibility for the actions of their own soldiers, precedent tells us that justice will not be done.
Mu Naw, who lived in Papun District/Mutraw District, in northern Karen State, was a mother of three, an innocent civilian who was the victim of an extrajudicial killing. Two Myanmar military soldiers, who were stationed at a nearby base, came into her home, shot her three times and stole her jewelry. As the Karen Women’s Organization stated “Mu Naw had no weapon. She posed no threat.” Her murder was strongly condemned by Karen political and civil society organizations, while demonstrations protesting the systemic and omnipresent violence of the Myanmar military have taken place in Karen State.
The Myanmar military has responded, stating that the two soldiers have been arrested and will face a court-martial. Yet already, excuses for their behaviour are being made, with a statement from the military indicating that the gun went off by accident, and that the two soldiers were drunk. Yet what kind of institution uses a drunken accident as a reason for the death of any human life? Thus, despite some public comments that the soldiers in question will face harsh punishment for their actions, this cannot be accepted as a path towards justice. The institutional culture, as well as legal and political protection, enables the Myanmar military to escape accountability, as precedent shows over several decades. For example, a massacre of ten Rohingya by the Myanmar military in Inn Dinn, Rakhine State in September 2017, methodologically detailed by a Reuters report, resulted in the Reuters journalists who investigated the incident spending more time in prison than the seven soldiers who were found guilty in the military court proceedings. The seven soldiers were released after spending less than a year of a ten year sentence for engaging in the massacre. This is the reality of court-martials and military justice in Myanmar – a slap on the wrist.
In another case this year, the military announced it had convicted three soldiers for their role in another massacre of Rohingya in Gu Dar Pyin Village, in Rakhine State in 2017. Extensively documented by the UN Fact-Finding Mission, and the press, hundreds of villagers were murdered, women were raped, and the village was burnt down. Five mass graves were found. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi described the courts-martial process as an example of the military pursuing accountability. Yet, regarding the decision, no information as regards the identity, the sentence, nor the actual actions of the soldiers involved has been disclosed publicly. There is a distinct lack of transparency and the likelihood is that the guilty parties will not serve anything like a proper jail sentence. As Human Rights Watch stated, this “case underscores the Myanmar government’s longstanding efforts to conceal military crimes with hollow admissions of wrongdoing and claims of justice.” The network of Karen civil society organizations, the Karen Peace Support Network aptly describes the lack of transparency in courts-martials, “Even where there are high profile cases which pressure the military to take action, trials are held in secrecy, any punishment is often secret, and it is not known if soldiers convicted of these type of crimes even serve their sentences. An approach like this from the top of the military encourages soldiers to feel that they can get away with such crimes.”
In more recent cases, an ethnic Rakhine woman has filed a case at her local police station after being raped by three Myanmar military soldiers at gunpoint in Rathaedaung Township, Rakhine State last month. Also in Rakhine State, a video of five Rakhine men blindfolded and being beaten on a boat went viral in May. Meanwhile, in Shan State, operations against the Shan State Army – South, resulted in an elderly man being shot and killed by the Myanmar military while fleeing for cover.
The examples of military justice such as the massacres at Gu Dar Pyin and Inn Dinn mean that the prospects of accountability for the severe human rights violations committed by the Myanmar military in Karen, Rakhine and Shan States in the past few months are very low. Domestic accountability does not exist for the military.
In Myanmar, court-martials are a charade to appease demands for justice from local civil society and international actors. Taking these seriously will be delaying justice for victims of the heinous crimes long committed by the Myanmar military. Entrenched impunity, protected by the Constitution and laws, as well as the political might of the Myanmar military, means that the soldiers who raped the Rakhine woman, the soldiers who murdered the elderly Shan man, and the soldiers who killed and stole from the Karen woman will likely be awarded get-out-of jail free cards, or if convicted, penalties will likely not commensurate with the gravity of the crimes they committed. Worse still, the culture of impunity within the institution, sanctioned by those at the very top, means that such cases will continue to occur. The albatross that remains around the neck of Myanmar, that impedes any progress towards human rights, justice and democracy, is the Myanmar military. The only way to stop military impunity and achieve justice and accountability in Myanmar is through International criminal accountability mechanisms. Therefore the Myanmar government must cooperate with the UN Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) while the UN Security Council must refer the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court or create an ad-hoc tribunal to fully investigate the crimes being committed throughout Myanmar, particularly in ethnic and conflict regions, and prosecute the perpetrators.
____________
[1] One year following the 1988 pro-democracy uprising, the former military junta changed the country’s name from Burma to Myanmar overnight. Progressive Voice uses the term ‘Myanmar’ in acknowledgement that most people of the country use this term. However, the deception of inclusiveness and the historical process of coercion by the former State Peace and Development Council military regime into usage of ‘Myanmar’ rather than ‘Burma’ without the consent of the people is recognized and not forgotten. Thus, under certain circumstances, ‘Burma’ is used.
Resources from the past week
Statements and Press Releases
British Company Portia To Stop Managing Military Port in Yangon
By Burma Campaign UK
Burma Army Soldiers Murder 40-Year-Old Karen Woman in Her Home
By Free Burma Rangers
By Global Witness
Japan: Cancel Financial Grant to Myanmar Police
By Human Rights Watch
မြေသိမ်းဆည်းခံ တောင်သူလယ်သမားများ၏ သတင်းစာရှင်းလင်းပွဲ
By Hsi Hseng Famers
By Justice For Myanmar
By Justice For Myanmar
“We Want Justice”: Burmese Soldiers Kill Another Villager in Karen State
By Karen Community of Canada
By Karen Peace Support Network
KWO Strongly Condemns Attack on Karen Civilian Woman by the Burma Army
By Karen Women’s Organization
By KNU Concerned Group
By Legal Aid Network
By KNU Concerned Group
The Network for Human Rights Documentation-Burma Calls for Accountability in Ta’ang Rape Case
By Network for Human Rights Documentation – Burma
တအာင်းအမျိုးသမီးငယ်တဦး အဓမ္မပြုကျင့်ခံရခြင်းနှင့်ပတ်သက်၍ သဘောထားထုတ်ပြန်ချက်
By Network for Human Rights Documentation – Burma
Reports
Out of the Shadows: Who Really Controls Myanmar’s Extractives Companies?
By Global Witness
By Shan Human Rights Foundation
By Shan Human Rights Foundation
Progressive Voice is a participatory, rights-based policy research and advocacy organization that was born out of Burma Partnership. Burma Partnership officially ended its work on October 10, 2016 transitioning to a rights-based policy research and advocacy organization called Progressive Voice. For further information, please see our press release “Burma Partnership Celebrates Continuing Regional Solidarity for Burma and Embraces the Work Ahead for Progressive Voice.”
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
၎
င
၎
၎
