Dr Yin Yin New
Hearings related to the case between the Republic of The Gambia and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar are being held at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, from 12 to 29 January.
In connection with the hearings, the following are the statements made by Dr Yin Yin Nwe, a member of the advisory team to the Acting President of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, and American writer Mr Rick Heizman.
Dr Yin Yin New
Member, the Advisory Team to the Acting President
First of all, I would like to say that at the ICJ, a delegation led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing, with the participation of Union Minister Dr Thida Oo, has gone to present explanations. An adviser from our office, Daw Khin Oo Hlaing, is also included in the delegation. I fully support their presentation. The reason is that, regarding the allegations that the events of 2016 and 2017 constituted genocide against Bengalis, this is the first time that the facts which occurred before the current government came to office have been presented to the international community with evidence. Therefore, this is the first time under this government that the events have been explained accurately and in a proper process. It is the first time that presentations have been made with supporting evidence from our own perspective, from the State’s perspective, from the perspective of national sovereignty, and from the perspectives of ethnic nationalities. Under the previous government, the presentation did not reach this level. I listened at that time as well, and it did not go as far as presenting accurate facts of what actually happened.
To continue, I would like to talk about the ICJ case currently taking place in The Hague. Myanmar is involved in a case brought by The Gambia. It is a case based on allegations made by The Gambia. As this is the first section and an important aspect of the case, I would like to briefly explain the Kofi Annan Commission. I myself previously worked at the United Nations, and I have also spoken with Kofi Annan. He was the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations and served from 1996 to 2007.
The first point I would like to make is that I do not really understand why he was selected to lead the report. The reason is that, whether one looks at Kofi Annan’s personal biography or the biography issued by the United Nations, I would have to assess him as a Secretary-General who did not place much emphasis on the sovereignty of UN member states. For example, take Serbia. It is a sovereign country in its own right. During the conflicts between Serbia and Kosovo, this was considered an internal issue. Many countries regarded it as an internal conflict. The reason was that Kosovo, being a province with a Muslim-majority population, sought to secede. Because it sought to secede, many European countries supported that secession, whereas Serbia and, for example, many Asian countries did not support it.
At that time, there was no consensus within the UN to forcibly intervene in Serbia. Since agreement could not be reached, what happened was that, with the authorization and orders of Kofi Annan, NATO aircraft – especially US warplanes – bombed Serbia. In 1999, when he was serving as Secretary-General, the bombing campaign lasted from March to May. During the air strikes, the Chinese embassy was hit. When the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, was struck, three Chinese journalists were killed, and about 21 Chinese nationals at the embassy were injured. This was not a bombing campaign authorized by the United Nations. Many countries viewed it as a unilateral act of coercion. As a result, Europe supported Kosovo’s secession. Under the pressure of the bombing, Serbia did not agree to allow Kosovo to break away, but it ultimately did so. Even today, the number of governments worldwide that do not recognize Kosovo as an independent country is greater, while Western countries do recognize it.
So what I mean is that in the case of Kosovo and Serbia, ordering such unilateral bombing without considering Serbia’s needs as a sovereign state, or its legal framework, must be regarded as a lack of respect for that country. It was a failure to respect Serbia’s sovereignty. Since this happened in 1999, Kofi Annan was already serving as Secretary-General at that time, a position he held until 2007. Frankly speaking, I never thought that in matters that touch on our country’s sovereignty, such as secession issues within our country, demands for secession by Bengalis, or the use of alternative terms instead of the official designations defined by the state on ethnic grounds, a commission would be formed, and Kofi Annan would be appointed as its chair. That is because we believed that all of his actions demonstrated that he did not place importance on the sovereignty of a state.
At that time, when the Myanmar government proposed forming a commission that included Kofi Annan, the Rakhine National Party (ANP) and the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) objected in Hluttaw. They said it should not be done and that they did not agree. However, those objections were not heeded. Without seeking a decision from Hluttaw, the national leaders at the time went ahead and had Kofi Annan form the commission, instructing it to conduct inquiries and investigations, and then to produce a report.
As for the second part, I need to explain what happened after the Kofi Annan Commission was formed, carried out field visits, and issued its report. The first point is that while conducting fieldwork, the commission went to Bengali families and Bengali villages and carried out face-toface interviews and on-site investigations. While they were conducting these interviews, phone calls came in, and immediately afterward they began referring to themselves not as Muslims, but as Rohingya. From this, it appears that someone from outside was directing or influencing the use of that name.
The third point is that once the report was released, it contained recommendations that were extremely difficult for the state to implement. I would like to briefly mention what some of those points were. But before doing so, when we say they are difficult to implement, what happens if they are not implemented is that the state comes under criticism. Because it was a report endorsed by such a prominent figure as Kofi Annan, a report in which he himself was directly involved, questions arose as to why the state did not act in accordance with those recommendations. As a result, at that time, the country’s leaders said they would implement them and gave such assurances. Now, however, a great deal of time has passed, and the situation in Rakhine State has changed significantly. Whether those recommendations are easy or difficult to implement under current conditions is something citizens must judge for themselves.
The first difficulty in implementing it is the citizenship law. The law currently in effect is the 1982 Citizenship Law, which governs the state today. According to that law, anyone who wants to be recognized as a citizen must apply under the framework of the citizenship law and submit a registration application. This law does not target any particular religion or ethnicity. For example, I myself grew up in Shan State. At that time, in the border areas between Shan State and China, Chinese people also had to follow this law, no matter what they said. Some wanted to have a citizenship card, but whether they got it depended on whether their father had one. It was that kind of situation.
So, regarding the Kofi Annan Commission’s report, it stated that Myanmar’s citizenship law, which it criticized, does not meet international standards or global norms. The report recommended that the law be reviewed and amended as necessary. The main point, as I see it – and anyone can also evaluate this – is: what are international standards? Does the citizenship law meet international standards? For example, to be a British citizen, there are clear criteria. To become an American citizen, there are also defined criteria: what conditions must be fulfilled. The same is true for Thai citizenship. When it comes to becoming a Myanmar citizen, there are many requirements. One very obvious requirement is that a person must be proficient in a native ethnic language. This particular requirement cannot be compared to international standards. Therefore, reviewing and changing it to align with international norms is not simple. This illustrates why implementing it is extremely difficult in practice it’s a very complex and challenging issue.
The second point is that the Kofi Annan Commission also didn’t like that there are different levels or categories of citizen ship. Other countries also have different types of citizenship – it’s not unique to Myanmar. But compared to Myanmar, other countries usually have fewer complicated criteria. If you look at Myanmar’s citizenship law, the definition of “citizen” is applied only within a certain group: it doesn’t include people who aren’t citizens. In other words, it only applies to those who are already considered citizens. One category is “full citizen by birth”, which applies to those who have been citizens by birth. These are ethnic groups whose ancestors – parents, grandparents, great-grandparents – arrived in Myanmar before 1823; their families have long been established here. All of them are considered full citizens by birth. Another category is “associate citizen”. This was created under the 1948 Citizenship Act. According to that act, a person who becomes a citizen through the law is called a associate citizen.
The next category is “naturalized citizen.” Under the 1982 Citizenship Law, there are different types of people who can apply. These are also just parts of our citizenship law. If we were to change these as well, it would mean removing the categories entirely – but that is different from how other countries do it. Some countries simply have citizens and non-citizens. Some countries have levels or categories within citizenship. From these two points, international standards suggest how it should ideally be. The main idea is that there shouldn’t be separate types of citizens – it should be implemented as such. Right now, the situation in Rakhine State is urgent. For Myanmar, the situation concerning Rakhine State is also critical. Under these circumstances, there is no way the 1982 Citizenship Law can be changed. This is what I want to emphasize clearly.
The third point is about access to and from Rakhine State. According to the report, journalists – from local reporters to international correspondents – and international figures should be allowed full access in and out of Rakhine State, without any security restrictions. That was part of the recommendation. At that time, as I mentioned earlier, the situation was urgent and extremely tense. And by “tense”, I don’t mean just me or the civilians – it wasn’t Tatmadaw either. To be clear, at that time, tensions were very high between the Rakhine ethnic groups and the Bengali population, so it was not possible to simply allow unrestricted access. There were security rules and movement restrictions in place. The fourth point is about border guard troops: the recommendation suggested that all security personnel in Rakhine State should be police, not the military. But in reality, this is hard to implement, because Tatmadaw has its own role and authority – it cannot simply be excluded. That’s what I wanted to explain.
#TheGlobalNewLightOfMyanmar