Transitional Justice refers to the ways "countries emerging from periods of conflict and repression address large-scale or systematic human rights violations so numerous and so serious that the normal justice system will not be able to provide an adequate response.” ― International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
On March 2, 2019, I participated in a panel with three of my fellow classmates; now very dear friends! We had taken an honors seminar together on Transitional Justice in the Fall of 2018, and by some stroke of fate found ourselves with the opportunity to collaborate with our research papers and present at the annual Maryland Collegiate Honors Conference.
Our papers outlined the various stages of Transitional Justice, in different countries and situations around the world. Our presentation also went in depth on our critiques of Transitional Justice, and the reform measures that need to be taken.
Important Terms
Truth Commission: official body established to investigate a series of human rights violations, war crimes, or other serious abuses that took place over many years. They conclude with a final report, including recommendations for reform to prevent such abuses from being repeated.
Reparations: In transitional justice, reparations are measures taken by the state to redress gross and systematic violations of human rights law or humanitarian law through the administration of some form of compensation or restitution to the victims.
We started the panel by introducing the definitions of essential terms, and expressing the overall panel's thesis: "There are problems inherent to the field of Transitional Justice that can be observed in transitioning societies around the globe."
We then jumped into Sai's portion of the panel, which addressed the cases of apartheid in South Africa and the rise of racially motivated police brutality in the United States.
Her thesis was building off of the issues that arise due to the Ritualization of Transitional Justice and stated: "In societies where race is a politically salient identity cleavage that is further compounded by economic inequality, racial tensions cannot be resolved, in the long term, by Truth Commissions that do not implement reparations and institutional reform."
Sai, firstly, broke down her thesis word by word, because the terms were instrumental in understanding how Transitional Justice had fallen short in South Africa and America.
Identity Cleavages refer to divisions in society, which can be can be racial (Native American/black/white/Asian, etc), ethnic (Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda), religious (Sunni-Shia), or political (Republican-Democrat). Salience refers to how important an identity is in a given situation. Therefore in a society where you have multiple cleavages, they can be described as compounded or cross-cutting. Sai developed a diagram, which I have inserted below, that aptly illustrates and defines the difference between compounded and cross-cutting cleavages.
Therefore, we can see through this diagram that in society B there are cross-cutting cleavages, which is what all societies should strive towards. As Sai continued, however, we learned that this was still not the case in South Africa and the USA, despite the transitional justice and Truth Commissions both countries had gone through.
Sai then gave a brief history lesson, to serve as a backdrop for the issues still at large today. It's important to note that South Africa has suffered from a history of colonization by the Dutch and the British, and even after it's official formation in 1910, South Africa has been controlled by a white minority-controlled government. This government introduced the Land Act, which barred blacks from holding land outside of designated reserves. These were the beginnings of racial classification and institutionalized racism.
Predictably, and deliberately, this resulted in a large disparity in wealth and political power. Apartheid was met with increasing international pressure in the 60s. After decades of systematic oppression, and acute suffering from human rights abuses, the uprising of Soweto, the largest black township, led to the declaration of a state of emergency. In 1994 black South Africans were finally allowed to vote in an election that resulted in Nelson Mandela’s presidency, who then founded the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1996.
So let's make sure we have the major timeline.
Institutionalization of socioeconomic inequality based on race.
Politically salient society: because black South Africans were disenfranchised and had little power over government.
A Truth Commission (TRC) is set up to address Apartheid and its consequences.
The South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) is probably the most well-known Truth Commission. It was the first ever to hold public hearings, and it was regarded as generally successful in moving South Africa towards a peaceful democracy. At the crucial juncture, the South African government was working to give victims justice, while promoting peace, unity and the ideal of one South Africa as a rainbow nation.
However, the South Africa TRC was very heavily focused on individual wrongs and human rights abuses It failed to address and reprimand the potentially long lasting effects of institutional racism towards the black and non-white minority South Africans. During Mandela’s presidency, black income did increase at a high rate, but after he stepped down in 1999, the growth slowed, and the potential for long-lasting harm was unfortunately realized.
The most recent statistics show that the rate of black income is now in decline, and the income gap is increasing rapidly, making South Africa one of the most unequal countries, economically, in the world.
Many black South African’s today have grown increasingly disappointed with the Truth Commission despite its initial positive reception.
In the words of South African political scientist, Sisonke Msimang, "Today, many look back on the process as a carefully managed stage show—a piece of theater concerned with the appearance of truth-telling rather than the substance of what the truth actually means."
Now Sai moved over to the US, and exposed how there are many more parallels to South Africa's situation and the TRC than first expected.
The US also has a racial divide, and the divide was politically salient from the Slave-Era to the Civil-Rights movement of the 50s and 60s. One can argue that, to some degree, it remains politically salient even today. This racial divide is also compounded by economic inequality in the US. White households on average make 10 time more than the average black household.
The US contains another parallel with South Africa, it recently held its own Truth Commission in November 2014. The Ferguson Commission was set up by Governor Jay Nixon, in Ferguson, Missouri, in response to the civil unrest surrounding the shooting and killing of teenager Michael Brown Jr by a white police officer, who was not indicted.
However, unlike the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Ferguson Commission focused solely on socioeconomic, institutionalized racism against black citizens. Much of the wording seemed directed towards opening the eyes of white citizens, similarly to how the TV broadcasts on the South Africa TRC tried to make it impossible for white South African to deny the reality of apartheid. Yet, this commission also failed to institute the economic reforms it set out to clearly underline in its report.
So, why do so many Truth Commission address problems that countries do not seem to prioritizing resolving? Sai expertly explained that this unfortunate phenomenon has to do with the very nature of the reparations process.
Unlike other forms of transitional justice, reparations have no start and end date, but rather the process, if done right, should be a constantly looping circle.
The diagram to the right outlines the various stages of the process: You have to acknowledge that there’s a problem, define the scope of the issue, plan and fund a program, implement it, and then reassess it to ascertain its effectiveness and whether more needs to be done.
The reassess stage should always lead to some further acknowledgment, whether that is because the solution still needs some tweaking, or to measure its impact on the community. However, many truth commissions fail to fully utilize the various stages of the reparations process, and rarely, if ever, reach the reassess stage.
Frankly, the reparations process' greatest weakness lies in the constant scrutiny and controversy surrounding it, specifically when it comes to the topic of direct financial compensation to victims. For example, at the end of Apartheid, the talk of financial reparations caused the US to raise concerns about the spread of communism in Africa.
Sai ended her portion with the conclusion, "In societies where race is a politically salient social cleavage that is further compounded by economic inequality, racial tensions cannot be resolved, long term, by Truth Commissions that do not implement reparations and institutional reform," effectively reinforcing her thesis.
We then moved to Nia's portion of the panel, which was about Delayed Transitional Justice in Indonesia.
Her portion continued to build off of the effects of ethnic identity cleavages and the impacts of systematic economic inequality, primarily focusing on the oppression of Indonesian Chinese citizens, who were exacerbated by the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
Nia's thesis stated, "After Suharto’s regime, Indonesia’s Presidents have taken constitutional reforms geared towards Reparative and Reconciliatory Justice for minority groups who were victimized by the regime, including the Indonesian Chinese community, however, twenty years after the May 1998 Riots, no Judicial Justice is delivered to the victims."
To provide a full timeline to the issues in Indonesia, Nia went back in time to the military coup of 1965; Suharto became Indonesia’s 2nd president after taking over the government from the founding father. Suharto's authoritarian style of governing resulted in many systematic human rights abuses. He was responsible for:
placing restrictions on religious affiliations
discrimination towards minority groups
rampant corruption (controlled judicial systems)
extensive human rights violations (torture, massacres, war crimes)
During Suharto's dictatorship, the Indonesian Chinese were labeled non-native, which restricted them from participation in politics and civil servants. He also placed confinements on the Indonesian Chinese communities in terms of their participation in governance and politics, which resulted in them dominating the economic industry. This resulted in growing economic inequality, as they essentially controlled many of the country’s economic resources and establishments.
Therefore, the gap between the well-off financially Indonesian Chinese/non-pribumi (non-native) versus the poor pribumi (native) was created, and unfortunately, continues to widen even today.
Nia went on to emphasize the full extent of the corruption by Suharto and his cronies. The regime amassed billions of dollars in illegal wealth, and Suharto's Java-centric economic development meant that the people living in the other islands were exploited and restrained from economic opportunities. Not only did they have to remain in poverty, but these actions furthered the economic inequality between them, creating another class cleavage between those who lived in Java and those who didn't.
With all these issues already swirling inland, it was no surprise that when the July 1997 Asian Financial Crisis hit, Indonesia suffered greatly. One could even argue that the country suffered the most, in all aspects; politically, socially, and economically.
The value of the currency devalued and foreign investors left the country, which resulted in mass layoffs and terminations across the job sector. People who were affected the most were mainly the pribumi, as many of them were already unemployed.
The Indonesian Chinese community were scapegoated for the economic downfall, and the existing economic inequality became even more pronounced.
The crisis ended up escalating to the May 1998 Anti-Chinese Riots, and the country faced even more civil unrest.
Nia emphasized that the middle to low income pribumi citizens, with pre-existing resentment towards Indonesian Chinese, reached their breaking point during the financial crisis. Due to manipulation and propaganda by government officials, the pribumi organized in groups and committed human rights violations against the Indonesian Chinese communities in Jakarta and other major cities. The riots involved looting, burning, killing, and even rape against innocent Indonesian Chinese citizens.
While the Anti-Chinese Riots represented the clash between economic inequalities, at the same time Indonesia saw even more civil distress as protests rose against the tyrannical dictatorship. Students from various universities in the country initiated mass demonstration. By gathering in droves in front of the country’s legislative building, they demanded Suharto to step down from his presidency due to his long overdue dictatorship regime and economic
failures. Unfortunately these protests were not spared from human rights violations either, and many students were kidnapped and killed.
It wasn't until May 23, 1998 that Suharto finally stepped down. This officially marked the country's Reformasi.
Reformasi is a Malay and Indonesian word for reform or reformation. It is also often defined as the movement to dethrone Suharto as President and the post-Suharto era in Indonesia that began immediately after.
Reformasi marked the beginning of the country’s political shift into democracy. Nia then continued to briefly list the flurry of President's that came after Suharto, and share how they used their terms to enact small but sure forms of transitional justice and reconciliation to mend the crimes and violations that had occurred under the dictatorship.
President B. J. Habibie:
Provided reconciliatory justice by revoking the use of Pribumi and Non-Pribumi terms.The terms had been used to creat an identity cleavage based on racial and ethnic differences, and could be traced back to the start of the Anti-Chinese sentiment in Indonesia. Revoking the terms was the initial start to creating an equal and democratic Indonesia.
President Gus Dur (Abdurrahman Wahid):
Lifted the ban on Chinese cultural and linguistic expression. This was a crucial step to stabilizing the country after the Anti-Chinese riots, and letting the Indonesian Chinese population know they were still valid as citizens.
President Megawati Sukarnoputri:
Declared Chinese New Year as a National holiday, as well as implemented policy that helped stabilize the overall democratization process and relationship between the legislative, executive, and military branches.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono:
Enacted the citizenship law in 2006 which declared that all Indonesians are equal in the eyes of law, and that all Indonesians are indigenous Indonesians. This law was especially significant for the Indonesian Chinese because under Suharto's regime they were restricted by law to participate in politics, but the citizenship law granted them that equality and access.
Nia then went in-depth about the reforms established by Indonesia's current President, Jokowi. The President's first term intentionally focused on social and economic justice, with the mission of increasing wellbeing for all Indonesians.
For Jokowi social justice reform focused on "Human Capital" development, such as:
Free healthcare
Free tuition from K to 12
Social benefits for low income families and students.
This continued along the lines of the social reforms the previous Presidents implemented, but Jokowi went a step further. He also focused on physical development, primarily infrastructure. Jokowi's main focus was on the islands outside of Java, giving them the attention and support that Suharto had witheld, which had been an essential part of creating various class and economic cleavages.
He oversaw the development of: airports, docks, bridges, roads, railways, energy plantations, and internet broadband connectivity. All to help connect the islands of Indonesia, and eliminate the inequalities that had been plowed between them.
President Jokowi was also very dedicated to eliminating the inequality gap, because he knew that if it was allowed to widen again it would lead to another civil upheaval. As a reconciliatory measure Jokowi's administration organized and observed the building of monuments throughout Indonesia, commemorating both the Anti-Chinese Riots and the Student Protest Movement.
The monuments serve as a form of symbolic reparation for the mass violence and human rights violations that occurred in 1998. They serve as tools of remembrance for the country, but with a forward-looking purpose as the symbols foster social dialogue and remind people that the perpetrators of the crimes have yet to be brought to court. Full justice is still incomplete.
Nia concluded her portion with the reminder that while Transitional Justice did place in Indonesia, and President Jokowi should be commended for his tireless work regarding political reform and dismantling systematic corruption, justice in Indonesia is still delayed. It is essential to understand that the perpetrators of the abuse are still in power. This highlighted Nia's initial thesis; while there has been civil reform and symbolic reparations, the true extent of justice is unfortunately delayed and has yet to be fully delivered.
Anna spoke for the next portion of the panel, and her section spoke about the Unbalanced Transitional Justice in Sri Lanka. Being from Sri Lanka herself, Anna gave some brief ethnic demographics about the island nation.
Sri Lanka's population is made up of the following ethnicities: 75% Sinhalese, followed by 11.2% Sri Lankan Tamil; an ethnic population separate from Indian Tamils who make up 4.2% of the population.
Anna also reminded us that Buddhism is the national religion of Sri Lanka, with 70% of Sri Lankans identifying as Buddhist. We can see, once again, the familiar blueprint of ethnic cleavages arise, this time also elevated by religion. These cleavages inevitably led to the Sri Lankan Civil War (SLCW).
Addressing the human rights violations that occurred during the war, Anna's thesis stated, "I will be addressing the incomplete and unbalanced 'justice' that was delivered following the 30 year civil war in Sri Lanka, due to it being extremely biased towards the government, who were the victors of the war and perpetrators of many crimes towards civilians."
Launching into the background of the war, Anna explained that the SLCW lasted from 1983 to 2009, making it one of the longest civil wars, lasting 30 years. In 2002 there was a ceasefire brokered by the government of Norway, however violence picked up again in 2005 following the presidential elections.
While there is no one definite answer as to what caused the civil war, one of the main issues was the desire for an independent Sri Lankan Tamil state.
Those fighting for independence from the mainly-Sinhalese government were known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
This militant organization was based in northeastern Sri Lanka, and aimed to secure an independent state of Tamil Eelam iin response to the Sri Lankan government's unfair policies towards Tamils.
The LTTE was led by Velupillai Prabhakaran, whose assassination on May 18, 2009 led to the official end of the Sri Lankan civil war.
Anna then jumped to 2005, when Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected President of Sri Lanka. He represented the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, a political party known for its right wing pro-Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism. One of his biggest campaign promises was to end the civil war once and for all.
Soon after being elected, he appointed his brother Gotabaya as the secretary of defense. Together, the brothers broadened the powers of the military and created alliances with other right-wing parties and Sinhalese nationalist groups. The Sri Lankan military launched violent offensive attacks against LTTE controlled areas until they were gradually able to reclaim territory. However, by doing so, the Rajapaksa family violated countless human rights.
In 2010, Wikileaks published cables in which American diplomats implicated President Rajapaksa, his family, and other SL politicians guilty of several war crimes. Mahinda's brother, Gotabaya, was implicated in ordering the military to massacre Tamil civilians during the final months of the war. The Rajapaksa family was also accused of illegal executions and extreme brutality towards captured LTTE soldiers.
Mahinda has also been accused of corruption and authoritarianism, including channeling funds to the LTTE to bribe voters in LTTE controlled areas.
In 2015 the country replaced Mahinda, and Maithripala Sirisena was elected president, replacing Mahinda. Sirisena appointed a new Secretary of Defense as well, seemingly removing the Rajapaksa family from power. Yet, Anna informed us, in 2018, Mahinda made global headlines again when Sirisena tried to oust the current prime minister and replace him with Mahinda.
A vote in the Sri Lankan Parliament found the attempted appointment illegal and the current PM kept his position. However, the fact that Mahinda was almost made PM shows that he still holds a considerable and worrying amount of power in the Sri Lankan government. Naturally there was global outrage at the attempted appointment, because of the many allegations of human rights abuses his family had committed during the war.
One of the more sardonic attempts of injustice Mahinda and the Rajapaksa family accomplished during their reign was the truth commission. Entitled the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, this was an attempt to investigate the claims of human rights committed during the civil war.
Initiated by Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010, the Commission aimed to investigate why the 2002 ceasefire failed and what could be learned to prevent a similar war from happening again. Anna briefly went over the conclusions of the Commission:
The commission concluded that the Sri Lankan government did not harm civilians, but that the LTTE targeted civilians and commit crimes against humanity.
Blame for civilian deaths and injuries was placed entirely on separatist movements and absolved the government/military of any wrongdoing.
The commission acknowledged bombings of civilian hospitals but named no perpetrators.
The report was highly contradictory: the commission firmly concluded that government forces did not kill any civilians, but later on also stated that any governmental killings of civilians were purely accidental.
The report was highly controversial, not just in Sri Lanka, but around the world. International organizations such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Crisis Group have provided evidence to prove the Rajapaksa family and politicians at the time guilty, and voiced their disapproval of the truth commission. Yet, the Sri Lankan government continues to claim all evidence of war crimes as "fake news".
Anna emphasized that because the abusive forces on the island became the victors of the war, and a perpetrator himself conducted the truth commission, it is hard to conclude for sure the extent of which the violent oppression against the Tamil minority took place. Mahinda not only conducted the commission, but the commission members could only analyze and publish whatever material the government approved of.
As shown in the infographic above, Sri Lanka is suffering from lack of accountability. The truth commission offered vague information regarding the disappearances and provided basically no closure to the families still searching for answers about their loved ones. Anna concluded with the fact that the fight and search for true justice and accountability in Sri Lanka continues; and the hope that bringing global awareness to this issue will pressure the government to take more responsible actions.
We then moved to my section of the portion of the panel, which was about the Problems with Initiating Transitional Justice. To explain this critique I spoke about the case of Myanmar, which is a very current, ongoing issue, where transitional justice has yet to take place.
My thesis stated, "The difficulty it takes to initiate the transitional justice system is a fatal flaw in its methodology, considering the magnitude of human rights violations at stake and dependent on the Transitional Justice system to work as it was intended to by international law."
Before launching into the research I gave a brief overview on the nation of Myanmar, it's history, and the Rohingya ethnicity. Myanmar is a Southeast Asian country bordering states and often boasts about being the most diverse, with over 100 different ethnic groups.
However, as we can see in the infographic above, the percentages are transparently skewed in terms of ethnicity, and so, again, we can see the conflicts between ethnic cleavages, and the human rights violations that arise out of such conflicts. I then delved further into the issue by dissecting Myanmar’s ethnic makeup, because understanding the past is essential to understanding the weight of the current crimes.
The Rohingya are a Muslim minority ethnic group in Myanmar. They reside in the Rakhine state, and are not formally recognized by the Myanmar government as valid citizens, so they are essentially stateless. To understand the reasoning behind why the government is so ruthlessly prosecuting them, we had to travel back in time; to the rise of the Myanmar empire, British Colonization, and then the nation's fall, leading to the plight it is undergoing today.
I firstly addressed The Toungoo Empire, which was a shining era for Myanmar. (It was referred to as Burma at the time.) The empire lasted for two centuries, and stretched from Manipur to Cambodia. It is still considered the largest empire in the history of Southeast Asia. During this period of time Myanmar saw many reforms take place and aimed to continue its growth with ambitious goals.
The succeeding era was known as the Konbaung Dynasty. This was the last dynasty that ruled Myanmar, from 1752 to 1885, and continued much of the reforms that had been introduced during the Toungoo Empire, elevating Myanmar to the status of one of the most literate nations in Asia at the time. However, the kings of the Konbaung Dynasty were also focused on external success, primarily with the goal of expansion.
This was not received well by bordering countries, primarily China and British controlled regions, so Myanmar’s attempts to expand left the country vulnerable as it poured resources outwards, and there was not enough left for inward defense. As a result this era saw the increased threat of British advances, and despite the six decades of war, Myanmar was not able to defend itself from colonization.
Prior to the 19th century, Myanmar existed as a collection of territories ruled by different ethnic groups, many of whom had had their own kingdoms, inside of the overall monarchy. So while there were occasional tensions between the different groups, there was still overall inter-ethnic harmony.
However with colonial rule, all of this was undermined. British occupation in Myanmar heightened ethnic tensions as well as facilitated class divides and created a tense civil atmosphere. The country split into two very apparent parts; those who were benefited by the British and supported their occupation in Myanmar, and those who didn’t.
I then continued, to explain that when Myanmar achieved its independence from Britain on January 4, 1948, and become a “democracy” it was far from an overnight fix. The Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League (AFPFL) took over and attempted to rebuild, but faced substantial roadblocks. The country's economy had suffered during the war for independence, and its towns and villages were destroyed.
The nation had to focus on rebuilding, but to do that they needed to foster international unity. A foreign policy of neutrality was decided upon.
However, the internal strife never died down, and the country never got the chance to experience true peace.
By 1958 the ruling AFPFL had become so divided by personal disagreements, and talk of a military takeover was inevitable.
The military coup rebranded as the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) and declared itself to be the only political party allowed to exist. Their reign lasted from 1962 until the uprising in 1988, and advocated a doctrine of socialism that combined both communist and Buddhist influences.
This era of military oppression saw the Rohingya ethnicity become stateless, when in 1982 the country introduced the Nationality Law and denied the Rohingya citizenship, not recognizing them as a legal ethnic group. This decision stemmed from anti-Rohingya sentiment that was sowed during British rule. The politicians of Myanmar openly claim that they believe the Rohingya ethnicity is not native to Myanmar, and rather are descendants of the Bengali farmers the British brought over when occupying the country. This legislation was the beginning of a long and systematic removal of the Rohingya people.
Before addressing the crimes against the Rohingya people, I then went in depth on the terms Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide, aiming to portray the parallels between the two crimes, and shed a sharper light on how they apply to the ongoing crisis in Myanmar.
Ethnic cleansing:
Ethnic cleansing does not have an official definition by the United Nations, therefore it has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law. The interpretation of the term is: the deliberate and systematic removal of a racial, political, or cultural group from a specific geographical area. A 1993 United Nations Commission defined it more specifically as, "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." ― United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNHCR)
Genocide:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 1) Killing members of the group; 2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. ― United Nations Genocide Prevention Convention
I then proposed a question. What is the difference? Why is one term recognized and severely condemned, while the other has yet to even be recognized as an official crime?
The difference is indifference. The phrase ethnic cleansing was first utilized in the 1990s, to describe the treatment suffered by ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia. While many have now started to refer to the atrocities of Yugoslavia as a genocide, the reasoning for labeling it an ethnic cleansing at the time it occurred was VERY deliberate.
The UN does not consider ethnic cleansing a crime under international law, therefore, the UN and international community was not responsible for the blatant human right violations. This term has continued to been used for various genocides across the globe, stripping them of their validity, and letting the global community wipe its hands from helping.
We can see this unfolding again, broad and clear in Myanmar. The Rohingya people are being systematically removed from the country, in inhumane, cruel and vicious ways, they are victims of an ongoing genocide.
To address the full extent of the crimes, I brought up the August 27, 2019 Fact-Finding Mission, led by UN investigators, that released a 441 page report on the massive violations committed by the military in the Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States, against the Rohingya.
António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, spoke about the UN report, but consistently avoided using the word genocide. He stated that, "independent experts found patterns of gross human rights violations and abuses committed by the security forces [which] undoubtedly amount to the gravest crimes under international law."
The UN investigators were denied access to Myanmar by the government, but instead interviewed 875 witnesses who had fled the country. I briefly went over the crimes that were investigated and revealed in the report:
Military unleashed a brutal campaign of violence that targeted Rohingya women, men, children, and entire villages, forcing them to flee for refuge.
Ordered consistent & organized burnings that targeted Rohingya homes, mosques, and other structures.
In early August 2017, bamboo and barbed wire fencing was erected around Rohingya homes, confining them to one area and preventing them from traveling outside.
Soldiers pulled Rohingya men and boys from their homes and executed them or took them away to BGP bases where they were interrogated, deprived of food, severely tortured, burned, and even hung from ceilings.
Raped women outside their homes or in the schools before killing them.
Separated children from their families and executed them by drowning.
We can see that the actions occurring against the Rohingya today blur between ethnic cleansing and genocide. And while it may seem trivial to harp over the label of the crimes, when the fact is such horrendous injustices are occurring, the term matters most in terms of initiating aid.
I stressed again, that since ethnic cleansing isn't recognized as a crime under international law, the UN and global community are essentially free from stepping in to help. Until they formally label the crisis a genocide, they do not have take measures of extensive aid and reform. This is a critical flaw in the transitional justice system, that prevents the process from starting in the first place.
After reasserting my thesis, the four of us came together to close our panel. We addressed the heavy topics and differing situations that we had articulated throughout the panel, but remained firm on the flaws we had each pinpointed during the various stages of transitional justice. However, it was important for us to end our panel with words of hope. While transitional justice is far from perfect, it is still essential and sorely needed. We stressed that our overall aim as a panel was to reform transitional justice, rather than lose hope and abandon it.
There are far too many injustices occurring around the world today for us to turn our backs on. It is our responsibility, as students, as citizens of the world, to learn and use that knowledge to give back to those in need.
“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples builds a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” ― Robert F. Kennedy
Comments