16 JANUARY 2026
MR KO KO HLAING
AGENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE AGENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR
ESTEEMED President of the International Court of Justice, distinguished Vice-President, honourable Members of the Court,
1. As Agent of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, it is with great solemnity that I stand before you to defend my country against the accusation of violating the Genocide Convention.
2. Myanmar fully recognizes the fundamental importance of the Genocide Convention. Myanmar signed it in 1949 and ratified it in 1956. Myanmar’s presence in this Great Hall of Justice is a testimony to the importance of the Convention for my country. Today, we stand before the Court to defend the honour of our country against an accusation of the utmost gravity. A finding of genocide would place an indelible stain on my country and its people. These proceedings are of fundamental importance for my country’s reputation and future.
3. Myanmar treats the allegations and this case with utmost seriousness. As a sovereign State fully committed to the observance of international law, it has prepared its written pleadings with the care and attention to detail that would be expected of a response to such grave allegations being determined by the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Myanmar has complied with all procedural rules and orders of the Court, including the provisional measures order. This demonstrates its commitment to the international rule of law and the role of the Court.
4. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of The Gambia. The Gambia’s enquiries into facts are rudimentary and partisan, based on reports of the Fact-finding Mission from 2018 and 2019, which are neither reliable nor objective, and were a condemnation without trial of Myanmar.
5. The Gambia has additionally failed to present the evidence objectively. It has furthermore nurtured a dangerous mixing of roles, in which its representatives and its sources of evidence (the so-called independent NGOs and witnesses) are on the same bench. This is in no way helpful to the integrity of the proceedings and casts serious doubt on the quality of the material put before you. An accusation of genocide is too grave to be handled in such a haphazard and unprofessional manner.
Mr President, Members of the Court,
6. Myanmar’s firm position is that The Gambia has failed to meet its burden of proof. This case will be decided on the basis of proven facts, not unsubstantiated allegations. Emotional language and blurry factual pictures are not a substitute for rigorous presentation of facts. This is also a case about the proper interpretation of the law, which The Gambia distorts, largely ignoring your jurisprudence, as our counsel will show.
7. The Gambia no longer denies the terrorist attacks by ARSA, which took place in northern Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017, or the need for a government response to those attacks. Obviously, Myanmar was not obliged to remain idle and allow terrorists to have free rein of northern Rakhine State. These attacks were the reasons for the “clearance operations”, which is a military term, referring to counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism operations.
8. It is true that, as a consequence of the clashes, people were killed, and a large number of people left the area and went to Bangladesh. As in other instances of armed conflict and instability throughout the world, and indeed, in other regions of Myanmar itself, such events will have had a huge impact on a large part of the region’s population. Myanmar is well aware of the human cost of armed conflict, instability and terrorism. There has been, historically, and unfortunately still is, conflict in different regions of Myanmar. The Government aspires to peace throughout the country and is striving its utmost through dialogues, discussions, and negotiations with all stakeholders.
9. However, the paths to peace are complex. When considering the narrow issues within the scope of these proceedings, the Court cannot make assumptions about such matters as the best ways forward, or about the aspirations of the Muslim population in northern Rakhine State. The Court cannot assume that those responsible for the terrorist attacks in 2016 and 2017 speak for them. Nor can the Court assume that any of the organizations involved in these proceedings speaks for them.
10. As a developing nation, Myanmar continues to face significant challenges arising from natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and storms, as well as financial constraints, emergencies, and ongoing internal instability. In this context, it has continuously taken steps to address the issues in northern Rakhine State. Details are given in Myanmar’s regular reports pursuant to the provisional measures order.
Mr President, Members of the Court,
11. The Gambia says that Myanmar does not recognize the right to exist of the Muslim minority in northern Rakhine State, or the right of this population to be in Myanmar. That is untrue. Myanmar considers that Bengalis in northern Rakhine State are culturally, ethnically and religiously part of the same group as the population living immediately across the border in Bangladesh. However, Myanmar accepts that even if this is so, those living in northern Rakhine State would be a “part” of that group for purposes of the Convention. Conversely, even if the Court were to find that those living in northern Rakhine State are a protected group in their own right for purposes of the Convention, that would not of itself mean that their ethnicity, culture or religion is any different from that of those living in the immediately adjacent territory of Bangladesh. There is therefore no need for the Court to consider cultural, ethnic and religious comparisons between those living on the two sides of the border.
12. The Gambia also complains that Myanmar does not use the name “Rohingya” officially, and instead uses the name “Bengali”. There are, however, justifiable reasons for this. Furthermore, failure to use a particular name in no way implies that the population does not exist, or has no right to exist.
13. The Gambia also says that Myanmar does not recognize the members of this population as its citizens. Again, even if this were true, it would not mean that Myanmar has a genocidal intent. But in fact, many Bengalis do indeed have one or other of the three types of Myanmar citizenship. There are others who would be recognized as having one or another of the three types of citizenship if they were to make an application for such recognition. There are also some who are not entitled to any type of citizenship in Myanmar. Again, there are reasons for this.
14. The first step for a person making an application for citizenship is to apply for what is called a National Verification Card, or “NVC”. There are around two hundred thousand Bengalis holding citizenship cards across the country, and fifty thousand Bengalis holding NVCs in Rakhine State alone. Those who apply for an NVC and are found not to be entitled to citizenship can continue to live lawfully in Myanmar as holders of an NVC.
15. Despite this, many Bengalis in northern Rakhine State refuse to engage with the NVC process. Some refuse on political grounds. Some refuse because they are pressured by activists not to do so, or have received false information from activists that anyone who applies for an NVC will never be granted citizenship. All this has nothing to do with genocide.
16. Like in other States, the Myanmar Constitution gives equal rights to all Myanmar citizens. No one can be discriminated for their origin or belief. Section (391-A) of the Constitution allows all eligible citizens to vote in the election. As we speak, the multiparty general elections are underway in Myanmar starting from 28 December 2025. The elections are being held in three phases, and all eligible voters, regardless of ethnicity and religion, came out to cast their votes. Fifty-seven (57) political parties and four thousand eight hundred and sixty-one (4,861) candidates are contesting for various constituencies, including Rakhine State. There are 154,049 Bengalis in Myanmar who are eligible to vote in the current elections.
Mr President, Members of the Court,
17. Let me also be clear that Myanmar is committed to achieving the repatriation to Myanmar of persons from Rakhine State currently living in camps in Bangladesh.
18. There were two previous instances of mass migration from Myanmar to Bangladesh, in 1978 and 1991-1992, respectively. On both of those two previous occasions, Myanmar was able to successfully repatriate those concerned in accordance with agreements made through bilateral consultations with Bangladesh.
19. Likewise, following the events of 2016 and 2017, agreements were quickly made between Myanmar and Bangladesh for the return of the displaced persons from Rakhine State. Comprehensive measures to resettle and rehabilitate the returnees are also being put in place, such as providing security, education, healthcare, food and job opportunities, with international cooperation, including from the United Nations. Since 2019, we have also had informal tripartite Working Groups and discussions on the repatriation process involving Myanmar, Bangladesh and China, at the senior official and vice-ministerial level. We have also invited diplomats, delegates of displaced persons themselves, as well as the media, to witness these comprehensive measures firsthand. In addition, we have a comprehensive plan for resettlement and rehabilitation of the returnees, including a one-stop service for the issuance of NVCs and applications for citizenship, temporary livelihood supports, and shelters in transition, new settlement arrangements near original places, distribution of land use for farming, income generation programmes, health and education facilities, etc.
20. Myanmar’s commitment and constant efforts since 2017 contradict The Gambia’s narrative that Myanmar’s intention is to destroy or forcibly deport this population.
21. However, although Myanmar had tried its utmost, there have unfortunately been setbacks to the repatriation process. These have included the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022, Cyclone Mocha, which hit the northern Rakhine area in 2023, and instability in Rakhine State. Circumstances not of Myanmar’s making have so far prevented the actual commencement of repatriations.
22. It will be seen on examination that these proceedings are in fact being used as a vehicle to advance agendas that have nothing to do with the Genocide Convention, such as demands that the name “Rohingya” be used officially,1 and that all of those currently living in camps in Bangladesh automatically be given citizenship of Myanmar upon being repatriated to Myanmar.
Mr President, Members of the Court,
23. Myanmar does not have trust in the impartiality of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar or of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, and does not accept the claimed accuracy or reliability of the information in their documents or in other documents relied on by The Gambia. It is therefore essential to Myanmar that the Court evaluate all of the detailed evidence itself, and not rely on opinions or conclusions expressed by any other bodies, especially if these are not based on first-hand evidence.
24. In these proceedings, Myanmar asks the Court to do no more than apply the terms of the Genocide Convention, as they were so carefully negotiated in 1948, and to follow its own case law, which is now well established. 3 Myanmar respectfully asks the Court to look very carefully at all of the evidence in detail, and to reach its own judgment of the facts. Myanmar is confident that the Court will act independently and impartially, and will consider the evidence fairly and objectively.
Mr President, Members of the Court,
25. I thank you for your kind attention, and I ask you, Mr President, to now call upon Dr Staker. Thank you.
#TheGlobalNewLightOfMyanmar