briefing paper on military intervention by khin ma ma myo

8/14/2019 Briefing Paper on Military Intervention by Khin Ma Ma Myo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/briefing-paper-on-military-intervention-by-khin-ma-ma-myo 1/22

1

Briefing Paper

on

Legitimate grounds for

the international community

to intervene in a foreign state

(Burma)

By Khin Ma Ma Myo



2

Contents

Executive Summary 3

1.1 Background 5

1.2 Sovereignty and Non-Intervention 9

1.3 Legitimate grounds for Humanitarian Intervention 13

1.4 Recommendation 19

Annexes 20



3

Executive Summary



4

For more than five decades, Burma has been entrenched in political and armed conflict

between the repressive ruling military regime, political opponents, and ethnic groups. Through

out the period, crimes against humanity were committed by the junta against the civilian

population. Burmese prisons are full of political prisoners rather than criminal prisoners.

Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds were taken place. Monasteries were

raided. Churches were burnt down. Monks were shot dead. Women political activists were

raped or threatened by some forms of sexual violence. Rape was used a weapon of war in

armed conflict zones.

Until Now, there has been an ongoing crimes against humanity and genocide in Easter Burma

as well as Western areas. Civilians are subjected to be mass killings, severe torture and rape

as well as forced labor, extortion and displacement. Genocide Intervention Network estimated

that estimate that nearly 99% of all civilian casualties in eastern Burma are caused by either

the government or affiliated militia groups. However, the Use of Force to avert overwhelming

humanitarian catastrophe remains controversial for the international community in terms of

legitimacy and sovereignty.

In fact, the UN Charter itself involves the contradicted articles that can lead to a clash over

humanitarian intervention decisions; i.e. article 2 based on the principle of sovereignty and

article 55-6 based on the principle of human rights. Nevertheless, the failure by the United

Nations to prevent, and subsequently, to stop the genocide in Rwanda was a failure by the

United Nations system as a whole. The Right to Protect principle is a remedy to overcome the

consequences of these contradicted principles and log-rolling problem of the UN Security

Council. When states are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens or when they

deliberately terrorize their citizens, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international

responsibility to protect. Hence UN Security Council shall invoke the principle of Responsibility to Protect in relation to the crisis in Burma.



5

1.1 Background

“Last year I was in Rwanda, where Western Governments failed to name genocide

for what it was. After Rwanda, the international community once again declared

"Never again", but in Burma it is never again, all over again.” 1

(Lord Alton, House of Lords, British Parliament debate on 28th November 2005)

For more than five decades, Burma has been entrenched in political and armed conflict

between the repressive ruling military regime, political opponents, and ethnic groups. The

ruling military generals are the persons committed or ordering to be committed grave

breaches of the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, by the acts of wilful killing, torture or

inhuman treatment, extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by

military necessity and taking civilians as hostages in armed conflicts with ethnic minority

groups. Several forms of evidences of these acts were documented in reports and papers

issued by various IGOs and NGOs.

The ruling military regime also violate the laws or customs of war such as wanton destructionof villages, attack or bombardment of undefended villages, seizure of, destruction or willful

damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and

sciences, historic monuments as well as the plunder of public or private property. Thousands

of villages were destroyed as part of the military campaigns against the ethnic groups. For

several decades, crimes against humanity were committed by the junta against the civilian

population. Burmese prisons are full of political prisoners rather than criminal prisoners.

Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds were taken place. Monasteries were

raided. Churches were burnt down. Monks were shot dead. Women political activists were

raped or threatened by some forms of sexual violence. Rape was used a weapon of war in

armed conflict zones. These are only a few examples of the crimes committed by the military

generals. These acts result in the displacement of over 3.5 millions of Burmese, as reported

1 http://www.davidalton.com/spchburma.html



6

by Refugees International recently.2

Gravely concerned at the continuous violations of human rights in Burma, the Commission on

Human Rights passed a resolution 1992/583 on 3 March 1992 to nominate a special

rapporteur to establish direct contacts with the military regime and with the people of Burma,

including political leaders deprived of their liberty, their families and their lawyers, with a view

to examining the situation of human rights in Burma and following any progress made towards

the transfer of power to a civilian Government and the drafting of a new constitution, the lifting

of restrictions on personal freedoms and the restoration of human rights in Burma. Since then,

various UN special envoys, rapporteurs including the UN Secretary-General have visited

Burma several times to urge the military regime for all party-inclusive, transparent and

national reconciliation.

In accordance with the international obligations set forth in the Charter of United Nations, the

United States of America elevates democracy and human rights to a prominent place in its

policy towards Burma. The United States Government has imposed different types of

sanctions against Burma. On May 20, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13047 that

prohibits new investment in Burma by U.S. persons and U.S. persons' facilitation of new

investment in Burma by foreign persons. On July 28, 2003, the President signed into law the

Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (BFDA)4 to restrict the financial resources of

Burma's ruling military junta. The President also issued Executive Order 3310 (E.O. 13310)

on July 28, 2003 that blocks all property and interests in property of the persons listed in its

black list and of certain persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation

with the Secretary of State, to meet the criteria set forth in E.O. 13310.

Accordingly, On October 18, 2007, the President issued Executive Order 13448 (E.O. 13448)expanding the scope of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13047 and blocking all

property and interests in property of the persons listed and of certain persons determined by

the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, to meet the

2 http://www.refugeesinternational.org/where-we-work/asia/burma

3 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r144.htm

4 www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/.../bfda_2003.pdf



7

criteria set forth in E.O.13448. On April 30, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13464

(E.O. 13464) to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in E.O.

13047 and expanded in E.O. 13448. On July 29, 2008, the President signed into law the Tom

Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-

286) (JADE Act) 5which, among other things, imposes mandatory blocking sanctions on

certain categories of persons enumerated in the JADE Act, prohibits the importation of jadeite

and rubies mined or extracted from Burma (and of articles of jewelry containing such jadeite

and rubies), and establishes conditions for the importation of jadeite and rubies mined or

extracted from a country other than Burma (and of articles of jewelry containing such jadeite

and rubies).

Similarly, the European Union has adopted a series of restricted measures such as banning

arms exports, visa restrictions on members of the regime, their allies and families, limiting

diplomatic contacts and freezing officials' offshore accounts, and suspending non-

humanitarian aid or development programs since 1996. Despite of these grave concerns and

pressures by international community, the military junta is still using 'rape as a weapon of

war', 'torture as a strategy against political activists' and 'mass killings as a tactic against

counter-insurgency'. The following is an evidence account from a report, namely, “Mortar

attacks, landmines and the destruction of schools in Papun District" 6 by Karen Human Rights

Group in August 2008.

5 ftn.fedex.com/news/en/100608

6 Karen Human Rights Group (2008) “Mortar attacks, landmines and the destruction of schools in Papun District" ,

August, 2008

They came and attacked the village, arrested villagers and killed the villagers and burnt

Down the village. They shelled Hta La Koh with six mortars and five of the mortars

exploded. Villagers and animals were injured and killed. Six villagers were injured,

including two students and myself [also a student]."

- Naw S, survivor of a May 2008 Military Junta attack on a village in Lu Thaw District

From “Mortar attacks, landmines and the destruction of schools in Papun District"

Karen Human Rights Group, August 2008.



8

There has been an ongoing crimes against humanity and genocide in Easter Burma as well

as Western areas. Civilians are subjected to be mass killings, severe torture and rape as well

as forced labor, extortion and displacement. Genocide Intervention Network estimated that

estimate that nearly 99% of all civilian casualties in eastern Burma are caused by either the

government or affiliated militia groups. 7

Hence, it is obvious that current international pressures could not be able to stop the primary

motive of the military regime to raise larger threats to national security that leads to threat to

international peace and security with massive flow of refugees. However, the alternative way

of the Use of Force to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe remains controversial for

the international community in terms of legitimacy and sovereignty.

(Ethnic Minorities fleeing from areas of mass killings)

7 http://www.genocideintervention.net/educate/crisis/burma



9

1.2 Sovereignty & Non- Intervention: Two coins of the

International Society

Traditionally, intervention has been defined in terms of a coercive breach of the walls of the

castle of sovereignty. Such a breach violates the cardinal norm of sovereignty, and its logical

corollary the rule of non-intervention, which is enshrined in customary international law

(Wheeler & Bellamy, 1974)8

The term 'sovereignty' is one of the most contested words in the political lexicon. It is a form

of authority, the power of command associated with a socially recognized right to rule. In his

book of Theory of International Politics (1979), Waltz simplified the assumption that the units

of the international system are sovereign states and the principle of international organization

is anarchy.9 For Waltz, the relationships between states are anarchic because they are

sovereign internally in relation to their own territories and people. This image is reflected in

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan as well. Hobbes stated that states establish sovereignty

domestically and then confront one another in an international state of nature.10 Hirst rejected

the view of the sovereign control of territory is purely internal by arguing that the achievement

of sovereign authority is at least partly the product of agreements between states in the form

of recognition of each others' sovereign rights.11 In this sense, Waltz's division between

hierarchy in the domestic sphere and anarchy in the international state seems a little shaky.

In the real terms, it is more complex due to the nature of practical concept. State sovereignty

does not come in fixed chunks and relationships and recognition involved in state sovereignty

can vary from one state to another, from time to time and from issue to issue. As Fowler andBunck argued, it is a basket of 'attributes and corresponding rights and duties'.12 Recognitions

8 Wheeler, N. & Bellamy, A. (2005) Humanitarian Intervention in World Politics in Baylis, J. & Smith, S. The

Globalization of World Politics, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 556

9 Waltz, K (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York, Random House10 Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan, quoted in Hirst (1997) From Statism to Pluralism, London, University College Press,

p.222

11 Hirst(1997) From Statism to Pluralism, London, University College Press, p.229

12 Fowler,M. & Bunck, J, (1995) Law, Power and the Sovereign State: The evolution and application of the Concept of Sovereignty, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University Press, p. 70



10

by other states depend on the purely prudent considerations of power and interests. Thus

state sovereignty faces two ways towards national territories and populations as well as other

states. In other words, state sovereignty can be external or international sovereignty in terms

of the ability to maintain constitutional independence in relation to external sources of

authority such as other states and internal or domestic sovereignty in terms of the ability to

exercise supreme authority over rival domestic sources of authority.13

This framework is clearly illustrated in the Act-of-State Doctrine launched by the United States

Supreme Court appears in Underhill V. Hernandez, 168. U.S. 250 (1897) which states as

Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the

courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its

own territory. Redress of grievances by reasons of such acts must be obtained through the means open

to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves. 14

Under International law, there is a legal equality among sovereign states, thus, every

sovereign state is bound to respect the sovereign rights of other states. At the international

level, a society of states (or international society) is based upon the sovereign equality of all

of its members and thus sovereignty is the basic in international system as a hallmark of

statehood.

International society is also built on the other principle of 'Non-intervention'. As there are

various forms of actions that directly challenge state sovereignty, the principle of

noninterference in affairs that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of state is the necessary and

logical corollary of state sovereignty. In a modern world, the term 'Intervention' is a widely

used term in the sphere of international affairs. According to Vincent, intervention is an

activity undertaken by a state, a group within a state, a group of states or an international

organization which interferes coercively in the domestic affairs of another state. 15 It clearly

reflects the traditional definition of the concept of 'Intervention'. In fact, there are a number of

13 Bull, H. (1995) The Anarchical Society, 2nd edition, London, Macmillan

14 Steiner, H. & Alston, P. (2000) International Human Rights in context: Politics, Moral and Law, Oxford University

Press, Oxford

15 Vincent, R. J. (1974) Nonintervention and International Order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 74



11

forms which intervention can take place, for instance, ideological intervention can be utilized

as a policy to persuade other states to adopt a particular way. Likewise, of the concept is

determined further, international politics itself is a form of intervention as it serves to coerce

other states into acting with a common interest. Thus, a narrower and more usable definition

is required to unpack the concept of 'Intervention'. In this perspective, Rosenau states that

all kinds of observers from a wide variety of perspective seem inclined to describe the behaviour of one

international actor toward an other as interventionary whenever the form of the behaviour constitutes a

sharp break with then-existing forms and whenever it is directed at changing or preserving the structure

of political authority in the target society (Rosenau, 1968)16

To this Rosenau's twain, Wyllie augmented with a third element by adding that disassociating

with the pre-existing norms initially and assisting with a return to normality is an essential

character of intervention.17 Thus, these three elements constitute the concept of Intervention

in various forms. Among these forms of intervention, military intervention is the most difficult

contested word at the international level. The most glaring difference between military

intervention and other types of intervention is the presence of military force in one's territory.

By taking the line of Clausewitz's commonly paraphrased location, the presence of military

force entering the territory of another state represents a variation on the theme of war.

However, Levite argues that the domain of strategies used in classical war and intervention

are different. In a classical war, two opposing military forces meet with the ambition of one

achieving a decisive military victory and political gain, whereas, in military intervention, the

intervening force pursue a political objective at a lower level.18

By highlighting the British errors during the Suez crisis of 1956, Wyllie points out the five

preconditions which must give first priority to a military intervention such as the necessity of

moral base for action; invitation from target state or international legal authorization, adequate

size of military to be used quickly; approval or absence of opposition [from allies] and clear

and realizable political objective19 In terms of the utility of military intervention, the underlying

16 Rosenau, J. (1968) 'The concept of Intervention', Journal of International Affairs, 17 (2), p. 167

17 Wyllie, J. (1984) The influence of British Arms, George Allen & Unwin Publishers Ltd, London, p.18

18 Levite, A., Jentleson, B. & Berman, L.(1992) Foreign Military Intervention, Columbia University Press, New York, p. 5-

6.

19 Wyllie, p. 27



12

doctrines of the use of Force during the Cold War is different from its use in a modern world.

One of the prominent doctrines is the Brezhnev Doctrine which asserted the Soviet right to

intervene to protect socialism wherever it was imposed. In fact, the Superpowers intervened

in third world conflicts via 'proxy wars'. These doctrines were not intended for global peace

and humanitarian intervention, but to add support to its 'client state' on the periphery of the

main event with an ambition to undermine the ally of its opponents.20

However, there were two state practices during the Cold War that result the humanitarian

outcomes even though the primary motives were not based on humanitarian considerations.

Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia in December 1978 and Tanzania's intervention in Uganda

led to the ending of state-sponsored mass killings. Both countries argued that they were

acting in self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, their actions

of intervention were not legitimized by the wider international society based on sovereignty

and nonintervention principles. These were reflected in the writings of Bull in 1984 stating that

there was no present tendency for states to claim, or, for the international community to

recognize any such right [of humanitarian intervention] and the reluctant international society

was very sensitive to jeopardize the rules of sovereignty and nonintervention.21

After the Cold War, the dynamics of international politics was changed and the concept of

'Humanitarian Intervention' emerged. If one thinks humanitarian intervention as only a form of

intervention, the common image may be contested in terms of sovereignty. In fact,

humanitarian intervention has its specific aims, varied from the concept of using of Force to

achieve ends. Farrell argues that humanitarian intervention is conducted in order to provide

emergency assistance and protect fundamental human rights.22 In terms of legitimacy, the

legality of humanitarian intervention has become a matter of dispute between restrictionists,

who argue that the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter rendershumanitarian intervention illegal, and counter-restrictionists, who argue that there is a legal

right of unilateral and collective humanitarian intervention in the international society.

20 Farrell, T. (2007) 'Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Operations', in Baylis, J. et al (ed.) Strategy in the

Contemporary World, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p.314

21 Bull (1984) Intervention in World Politics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 193 quoted in Wheeler & Bellamy, p. 563

22 Farrell, p.314



13

1.3 Legitimate Grounds for Humanitarian Intervention

If States bent on criminal behaviour know that frontiers are not the absolute defence; if they

know that the Security Council will take action to halt crimes against humanity, then they will

not embark on such a course of action in expectation of sovereign impunity.

The Charter requires the Council to be the defender of the common interest, and unless it is

seen to be so -- in an era of human rights, interdependence, and globalization -- there is a

danger that others could seek to take its place.

(Kofi Annan, 1999)23

Proponents of humanitarian intervention argues that ethnic-cleansing, wholesale slaughter,

genocide and mass killings are crimes against community that the international community

has an obligation to protect. In contrast, opponents assert that states should not be allowed to

risk the lives of their armed forces on humanitarian crusades as state leaders are chosen in

the name of states, not on behalf of the humanity. Parekh states that

Citizens are the exclusive responsibility of their state, and their state is entirely their own business. Thus,

if a civil authority has broken down or is behaving in an appalling way towards its citizens, this is the

responsibility of that state's citizens and its political leaders. Outsiders have no moral duty to intervene

even if they would improve the situation and stop the killings. 24

Likewise, realists also argue that humanitarian intervention should not be legitimized as an

exception to the general ban on the use of force in Article 2 (4) of UN Charter because this

can lead to abuse. Franck & Rodley claimed that states might espouse humanitarian motives

as a pretext to cover the pursuit of national self-interests in the absence of an impartialmechanism for deciding when humanitarian intervention is permissible.25 Moreover, pluralists

also argue that humanitarian intervention should not be permitted if there is a disagreement

23 Anna, K. (1999) Annual report of the secretary-general to the UN Assembly,

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990920.sgsm7136.html

24 Parekh (1997) 'Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention', International Political Science Review, 18 (1), p.56

25 Franck, T. & Rodley, N. (1973) 'After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by force', American Journal

of International Law, 67: 279



14

about the extent of extreme human rights violations in international society.

On the other hand, Solidarists argue that states and the international community have a legal

right as well as a moral duty to intervene in the situations of genocide and mass killings.

Arend and Beck claims that the UN Charter commits states to protect fundamental human

rights by pointing out the Article 1 (3), 55 and 56 of the Charter principles. 26 In terms of

Solidarism, some even further asserts that the human rights provisions of the Charter provide

a legal basis for unilateral forcible intervention if the UN fails to take appropriate actions to

remedy the situations of genocide and mass killings. By using the term 'opinio juris ' from the

language of international law, stated that 'not only must states actually engage in the practice

that is claimed to have the status of customary law, they must do so because they believe that

this practice is permitted by the law', some counter-restrictionists argue that states are

permitted to engage in humanitarian intervention under pre-Charter customary international

law.27

In fact, the UN Charter itself involves the contradicted articles that can lead to a clash over

humanitarian intervention decisions; i.e. article 2 based on the principle of sovereignty and

article 55-6 based on the principle of human rights. However, Chapter VII, that enables the

Security Council to authorize military enforcement action in cases where it finds a threat to

'international peace and security', could be stretched to legitimize military intervention in the

situations of mass killings that create massive refugee flows. In the case of northern Iraq,

UNSC Resolution 688 identified refugee problem caused by Saddam Hussein's regime as a

threat to international peace and security. Although the resolution was not passed under

Chapter VII, the Western powers justify their humanitarian intervention in northern Iraq as

authorization by Resolution 688. As the intervention had specified aims to save lives, no one

challenged the legality of this attempt at securing legitimacy.

In the case of Somalia, the UN legitimized US military intervention by passing Resolution 794

under Chapter VII. The main reason to authorize military intervention is based upon the

perception as not undermining the principles of sovereignty because Somalia is already a

26 Arend, A. & Beck, R. (1993) International Law and the Use of Force, London, Routledge, p. 132

27 Wheeler & Bellamy, p. 560



16

they deliberately terrorize their citizens.31 The report extended the responsibilities not only to

react to humanitarian crises, but also to prevent such crises and to rebuild the failed states.

An important aspect of this report is that it involves the specific criteria to judge the legitimacy

of military intervention for humanitarian purposes. It clearly stated that to be warranted the

military intervention as a military intervention for humanitarian purposes, there must be

serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur, of the

large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the

product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state

situation: or large scale 'ethnic cleansing', actual or apprehended, whether carried out by

killing, forced expulsion, acts or terror or rape.32

The commission also set up the precautionary principles to judge the legitimacy of military

intervention on humanitarian reasons such as

(1) Right intention: The primary purpose of the intervention, whatever other motives

intervening states may have, must be to halt or avert human suffering. Right intention is better

assured with multilateral operations, clearly supported by regional opinion and the victims

concerned.

(2) Last resort: Military intervention can only be justified when every non-military option for

the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis has been explored, with reasonable grounds

for believing lesser measures would not have succeeded.

(3) Proportional means: The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military intervention

should be the minimum necessary to secure the defined human protection objective.

(4) Reasonable prospects: There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or

averting the suffering which has justified the intervention, with the consequences of action notlikely to be worse than the consequences of inaction. 33

31 ICISS (2001) The Responsibility to protect, p. xi, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop/core-rtop-

documents

32 ICISS (2001), p. xii

33 ICISS (2001), p. xii



17

As the central idea of the responsibility to protect is to save lives, it gained support from many

governments and civil society from all regions. The historic commitment by a large number of

governments was made at the World Summit in September 2005. Heads of states and

governments agree in paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome document as

That each individual state has the primary responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war

crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. And it is also a responsibility for prevention of

these crimes.

That the international community should encourage or assist states to exercise this responsibility.

The international community has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other

peaceful means to help protect populations threatened by these crimes. When a state anifestly fails in its

protection responsibilities, and peaceful means are inadequate, the international community must take

stronger measures, including collective use of force authorized by the Security Council under Chapter

VII. (World Summit Outcome Document, 2005)34

To turn this commitment to the concept into a policy, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

issued a report entitled Implementing the Responsibility to Protect on 12 January, 2009. The

report proposes a terminological framework for understanding the Responsibility to Protect

and outlines measures and actors involved in implementing the three-pillar approach such as

1. Pillar One that focuses that states have the primary responsibility to protect their

populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

2. Pillar Two that addresses the commitment of the international community to provide

assistance to States in building capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war

crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are

under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

3. Pillar Three that focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timelyand decisive action to prevent and halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and

crimes against humanity when a State is anifestly failing to protect its populations.35

34 http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/398-general-assembly-r2p-

excerpt-from-outcome-document

35 UN General Assembly, Implementing the responsibility to protect : report of the Secretary-General, 12 January 2009,

A/63/677, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4989924d2.html



18

Under Pillar Three, the report proposed a number of steps in implementation, to be

undertaken by the United Nations and/or by regional or sub-regional arrangements. Proposed

actions include: appointment of fact-finding missions to investigate and report on alleged

violations of international law by the Security Council and the General Assembly, deployment

of a fact-finding mission as well as appointment of a special rapporteur to advise on the

situation by the Human Rights Council in a timely notice and messages to leaders on whether

States fail to meet obligations relating to the Responsibility to Protect, enabling information

delivery and a timely response by the respected bodies, including by the General Assembly,

Security Council, International Criminal Court, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN

High Commissioner for Refugees and the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and

giving a reminder of the obligation to prevent the incitement of genocide, crimes against

humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes that can be referred to the International Criminal

Court under the Rome Statue by the international community to the failed state.

For legitimate authorization of Responsibility to Protect, ICISS recommended that there was

no better or more appropriate body than the United Nations Security Council to authorize

military intervention for human protection purposes, thus, Security Council authorization

should in all cases be sought prior to any military intervention action being carried out.

However, to avoid the situations in Rwanda and Kosovo, the report added that the Security

Council should deal promptly with any request for authority to intervene where there are

allegations of large scale loss of human life or ethnic cleansing and in this context seek

adequate verification of facts or conditions on the ground that might support a military

intervention.36 On this ground, there are piles of reports, evidences and analysis denouncing

the Burmese military regime for its violations of human rights and international humanitarian

law. Recently, over 60 British Members of Parliament signed an Early Day Motion (EDM) and

urged the UN to apply the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) in relation to the Burmese junta’sgross human rights violations and campaign against ethnic minorities. Thus it is obvious that

the UN Security Council is the powerful legitimate body to authorize humanitarian intervention

to determine the fate of 52 millions people in the hands of the murderous regime.

36 ICISS (2001), p. XII-XIII



19

1.4 Recommendation

As mentioned earlier, there is no doubt that the primary obligation for protecting civilians lies

with states. However, the international community has also a shared responsibility to help

protect civilians in situations where states fail to do so. Therefore, it is important to build a

collective awareness of the importance of this responsibility. In this regard, UNSC is the most

responsible body in the world to authorize humanitarian intervention. The UNSC Resolution

1674: Responsibility to Protect also states

“Each Individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic

cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

The ruling junta in Burma has failed to protect Burmese citizens from crimes against

humanity. In fact, the military generals are the persons committed or ordered to be committed

mass killings, rape as a weapon of war and ethnic cleansing, etc. For several decades,

millions of Burmese people have been the victims of crimes against humanity with large scale

of loss of life and displacement. Therefore, UN Security Council should

• establish a commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of

crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma;

• adopt appropriate resolution on Burma in accordance with the

principle of Responsibility to Protect;

• urge the international humanitarian organizations to provide

humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable groups of thepopulation, including internally displaced persons.

Khin Ma Ma Myo (2009)



20

Annex-1: Early Day Motion for Human Rights in Burma (UK Parliament)

EDM 1336

HUMAN RIGHTS IN BURMA 23.04.2009

81 signatures

That this House expresses profound concern at the desperate and deteriorating human rights

situation in Burma; condemns the continuing widespread and systematic use of rape as a

weapon of war, torture, forced labour, forced relocation, religious persecution, forcible

recruitment of child soldiers and use of human minesweepers by the military regime; further

condemns the military offensives in eastern Burma, including attacks on civilians, resulting in

the internal displacement of one million people and the destruction of more than 3,300

villages in eastern Burma alone, and the imprisonment of over 2,100 political prisoners and

continued detention of Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi; calls on Her Majesty's Government

to draw these gross violations of human rights to the urgent attention of the UN Security

Council and the Secretary-General; urges Her Majesty's Government, along with other

governments, to propose the establishment of a commission of inquiry to investigate

allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma; and urges the UN to invoke

the principle of Responsibility to Protect in relation to the crisis in Burma.



21

Annex-2: Field Report summary by Free Burma Rangers (FBR)

FBR REPORT: Girl Gang Raped and Man Has Hands Cut Off by Burma Army soldiers in

Shan State: Shan State, Burma 4 June, 2009

A 15-year-old girl was raped by 12 Burma Army soldiers in Shan State according to

information from the PaO National Liberation Organization. The soldiers from Light Infantry

Battalion 426, including battalion commander Nyunt Oo, raped the girl on May 14 in an

orange grove where she had been working. She is now in Taunggyi hospital.

Soldiers from the same LIB cut the hands off U Khun Lon, 35, from Kawn Tai village, Tan

Yaan village area, Hsi Hseng district, southern Shan state, on May 18. The 13 soldiers forced

the villagers together, tortured them and accused them of communicating with the resistance

groups. Another man called Win Bo was hit several times with the butt of a rifle and seriously

injured. The soldiers also burned down a house and took Win Bo and a further 18 villagers to

Chee Ta Lee temple and tied them up. An attack on Burma Army soldiers on May 3 in the

same area left 12 of these soldiers dead.

U Khun Main, 43, headman of Pan Nyo village in Sai Khow village area, also Hsi Hseng

district, was cut around his head with a machete and beaten with rifle butts on May 23 by

soldiers under Captain Sun Aung from the same LIB. He was seriously injured and is confined

to his bed according to the PNLO.



22

On May 20, the LIB 421 led by Major Yae Htut came to Daw Na Kalu village on the

Shan/Karenni border and stole from the villagers. They took five and a half kyat Tha of gold

(worth approx US$2,619) and 11 silver coins worth about US$70 and 1.57 million kyat in cash

(worth approx US$ 1,246). The soldiers also stole animals and told the villagers in East

Paung Chaung they could not leave the village between 6pm and 6am.

According to information from the PNLO, since May 24, LIBs 425 and 426 are not allowing the

PaO National Organization to go east of the road connecting Ho Pong and Hsi Hseng and are

arresting anyone in camouflage clothes.

Some 500,000 PaO live in Shan State. The PNO signed a ceasefire with the SPDC in 1991,

but soldiers of the PNLO continue to fight for independence.Some 500,000 PaO live in Shan

State. The PNO signed a ceasefire with the SPDC in 1991, but soldiers of the PNLO continue

to fight for independence.

(The Free Burma Ranger’s (FBR) mission is to provide hope, help and love to internally

displaced people inside Burma, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Using a network of

indigenous field teams, FBR reports on human rights abuses, casualties and the humanitarian

needs of people who are under the oppression of the Burma Army. FBR provides medical,

spiritual and educational resources for IDP communities as they struggle to survive Burmese

military attacks)

briefing paper on military intervention by khin ma ma myo

Documents