Today, Explained - From Nobel Peace Prize to denying genocide

Episode Date: January 29, 2020

The International Court of Justice is ordering Myanmar to protect the Rohingya from genocide, but no one knows if Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi will heed the call. (Transcript here.) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk and authorized gaming partner of the NBA.

BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. On Thursday, the United Nations International Court of Justice issued a big, historic decision. Breaking news now out of The Hague, where there's been a major development in the case of Rohingya Muslims. It was a unanimous ruling. Myanmar must take all measures within its power to protect Rohingya Muslims against violence and preserve any evidence of genocide.

Today, the justice is partially served. This is a great day for us. We will celebrate. It was a rare win for the Rohingya people. And the craziest thing about it is that it's all thanks to a tiny African nation. Gambia made this happen. So all that the Gambia asks is that you tell Myanmar to stop these senseless killings, to stop these acts of barbarity and brutality that have shocked and continue to shock our collective conscience.

On today's show, we're going to explain how and whether any of this will change anything for the Rohingya. I asked David Sheffer. I'm a law professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, and I'm the former U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues during the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Could you help us sort of set the stage of, I guess, the Rohingya experience in Myanmar? Well, the world has witnessed, including in recent decades, an enormous number of atrocities. And the Rohingya are the latest, most blatant example of the onward march of atrocity crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. They are a Muslim minority population in a largely Buddhist state of Myanmar, which we used to know as Burma.

And they have been persecuted throughout the decades, and in fact, for hundreds of years in Myanmar. That has reached a peak in recent years. There was an unprecedented assault on the Rohingya population in August 2017 that resulted in more than 750,000, perhaps up to a million or more, fleeing across the border into Bangladesh, but also accompanied by many killings, rapes, arson, destruction of property, basically ethnic cleansing. And all of this has been recorded now by various UN reports. Can you tell me a little bit about Myanmar's sort of historic attitude towards the Rohingya? The Myanmar government has never regarded the Rohingya as legitimate citizens of the state of Myanmar. They are regarded as Bengalis,

namely as transients from Bangladesh that had crossed the border, even if it's hundreds of years ago. Now, that can be driven by religious prejudice, because Myanmar is essentially a Buddhist state, and this is a Muslim minority population, the Rohingya, and it's also an extremely poor population. More than 70% of the Rohingya population are at the poverty level. It also does have a situation

of conflict with some of the armed groups of the Rohingya. So it's not just a nuisance, it's actually considered to be a danger to the national security of Myanmar. And so that set of interests on the part of the government is what has driven this extreme persecution and, of course, alleged genocide against the Rohingya people in recent years. How does this set of atrocities end actually triggers the jurisdiction of the world court. And that is the crime of genocide. Why is that the trigger here? Because both Myanmar and the other state party to this case, the Gambia of West Africa, are parties to the Genocide Convention that is designed to prevent and punish the commission of the crime of genocide. Right. How does Gambia get involved? These two countries are like 10,000 kilometers apart, right? Yes. It may surprise some listeners that it is the Gambia

of West Africa, very far from South Asia, that is bringing this case. But under the terms of the Genocide Convention, state parties anywhere in the world can actually achieve proper standing before the world court in order to bring another state party to the court for adjudication of a dispute. Okay, but I still want to know why it was Gambia. There are a bunch of countries who could have called out Myanmar, right? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is a 57-nation organization, is very much behind this application by the Gambia. It is very interesting, the confluence of events within the Gambia, namely the Attorney General and Minister of Justice is an individual who formally worked on the prosecution staff of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. So you have an individual in a very high office in The Gambia who gets it.

And he's actually visited the refugee camps in Bangladesh where the Rohingya are now camped. And that had a tremendous impact on him. The Gambia itself has come out of two decades of its own internal violence and atrocities under its former leader, who has now left the country, and under this new government, there is an understanding of how important it is to bring to account government officials and others who are responsible for these types of atrocities. So how did that understanding of the situation in Myanmar play out in the International Court of Justice? It played out quite favorably for the Gambia, sort more harm is done and so that evidence is preserved. And the court has time to actually review the situation and then adjudicate upon it, upon the merits of the case.

We're a long way from reaching the merits of this case. But in the meantime, the International Court of Justice has quite a long history of ordering what are called provisional measures, which essentially are actions to be taken to prevent any further harm. So, are these provisional measures enforceable? Is this going to stop atrocities against the Rohingya? The precedents of the World Court on provisional measures do not give us great hope of compliance or enforcement of the measures. But the party that is the subject of the order has to be very careful. If they do not comply with the provisional measures, then that is going to be taken into account by the court with respect to its final judgment on the merits of the case. So Myanmar has good reason not to ignore this order. But I do think that it's going to be difficult to enforce the order

against Myanmar in a way that shows their compliance with the order month by month by month and year by year. That's going to be extremely difficult. So it's a tough road ahead and it's still years before the ICJ rules on whether Myanmar committed genocide here. But this, at the same time, is still a bright light for the Rohingya and a big blow to Myanmar. Is the country's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi speaking up about this? Oh, yes. I mean, she not only published an article in the Financial Times that one might say tried to whitewash what the Myanmar government has been doing, but she also spoke for the government in the world court.

Can there be genocidal intent on the part of the state that actively investigates, prosecutes and punishes soldiers and officers who are accused of wrongdoing? She even admitted that the government is looking at alleged war crimes by some of its military personnel, as well as violations of human rights by them against the Rohingya people. If war crimes have been committed by members of Myanmar's defense services, they will be prosecuted through our military justice system in accordance with Myanmar's constitution. She refused to concede any effort to examine the crime of genocide against the Rohingya. And it was essentially a statement that the military in Myanmar

would be extremely pleased with, because she basically stood up for them. Although the focus here is on members of the military, I can assure you that appropriate action will also be taken against civilian offenders in line with due process. She has an election coming up in Myanmar, and her position is actually quite popular among the Buddhist population of Myanmar.

So this is a rather useful setup for the election. Do you think this trial has changed the way the world sees her? I think the world started to see her quite differently some time ago after she essentially appeased the military's approach towards the Rohingya several years ago. So I think this will simply solidify the fact that she's fallen from her Nobel Peace Prize perch and is essentially being held in disrepute by so much of the international community now. Aung San Suu Kyi's fall from grace is after the break. I'm Sean Ramos-Firm. This is Today Explained. Thank you. and management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket. Ramp says they give finance teams unprecedented control and insight into company spend.

With Ramp, you're able to issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions and automate expense reporting so you can stop wasting time at the end of every month. And now you can get $250 when you join Ramp. You can go to ramp.com slash explained, ramp.com slash explained, r-a-m-p.com slash explained, cards issued by Sutton Bank. Member FDIC. Terms and conditions apply.

I mean, I remember seeing Obama, like, kiss her on the cheek. He was praising her. She won the Nobel Peace Prize. How did it go from that to, like, genocide a leader so quickly? I guess there was just sort of narratives about Aung San Suu Kyi that the world didn't want to hear. You know, it was an easy narrative that there was a beautiful woman under house arrest by the military junta

and going and standing up against the generals. And so to write or report anything different at that time was not only sort of counter to that narrative, it was seen as hugely unfounded and unpopular, even though at the time a lot of people were saying that there was more to Aung San Suu Kyi than meets the eye, particularly the ethnic groups who have never really felt that they represent her. Ella Callan is a documentary filmmaker based in Beirut.

Which is very interesting at the moment. There's a revolution of a different kind happening here. And so apologies if you're hearing a lot of things going on outside. Before Beirut, she covered Myanmar for Al Jazeera. I was one of the first foreign journalists to live in Myanmar after the country's political opening in 2012. How does Aung San Suu Kyi's story begin? She's born in Myanmar? Yeah, she was born in Myanmar, but she spent a really long time outside of Myanmar. And I guess it's difficult to talk about Aung San Suu Kyi without mentioning her father, General Aung San.

The demand of our people is complete independence. And before that independence comes, through a constituent assembly elected by the nationals of Burma, we want to have an interim national government with full authority. He was a very celebrated general who basically was responsible for gaining independence for then Burma from the British Empire after World War II. But at the same time that he gained independence, very quickly afterwards, he was assassinated. And he's a much revered figure in the country, and very much her lineage is part of her popularity and why people love her. Aung San Suu Kyi was just

a baby at the time that he was assassinated. But she very much has aligned herself with her father and made herself very much her father's shadow, if you like. She looks very much like him, which people talk about in Myanmar. And, you know, she's described him in glowing terms whenever she speaks about him. So how did she go from being, you know, like the daughter of revolutionary royalty to being, you know, a revolutionary herself? Well, she went to Oxford University in the UK and settled down there

and was very much not in the picture at all during the 60s and 70s in Myanmar. However, she returned to the country in the 80s to look after her dying mother. And when she returned, it happened at the same time that there was an uprising against the repressive military regime. And basically, she then became the face of that resistance against the military. You know, you must not underestimate our people. I may be the figurehead of the organisation, but they are in this movement because they believe in it, not because of me,

and they take full responsibility for their own deeds. So she sort of got swept up, if you like, in pro-democracy demonstrations. And it could have been by accident or it could have been by design, but she ended up co-founding the National League for Democracy, her party, and then very quickly afterwards she was placed under house arrest by the generals. We are calling on the brutal and bloody military dictatorship in Rangoon to immediately release Do Aung San Suu Kyi

and the over 2,000 political prisoners still detained in jails all across the country today. And she stayed there pretty much until 2010. In the early 2000s, you couldn't even mention her name in the country without risking being imprisoned yourself. So people would refer to her as the lady. And she really got this aura of mystery and martyrdom around her. What was this period of her life like, this period under house arrest?

While she was under house arrest, her husband died. Her husband and two small boys were left behind in the UK when she went to then Burma to look after her ailing mother. And so she was granted leave to go back and see her husband on his deathbed. But of course, the military would never have let her back in. And so she chose not to leave. And of course, this is one example, that and the fact that she didn't see her sons growing up. These are examples that are held up of the massive sacrifice that Aung San Suu Kyi made for her country. How does she go from internationally beloved political leader

under house arrest to actual leader of Myanmar? Well, something really extraordinary happened in Myanmar, which I don't think there's many examples of in history, which is the military leaders giving up power and actually holding democratic elections. It seems the world has a new democracy. After years of brutal repression, Burma's freedom movement and its charismatic leader Aung San Suu Kyi have prevailed. And this was an extraordinary time for the country because no one really expected this to happen, that they were going to have democratic elections and then

let Aung San Suu Kyi take power. She's genius. She's genius. She's the great leader. She's a light father. She's our mother. Make no mistake, the military, before they left power, really made sure that their business interests were looked after and they made sure that the power structures weren't going to see them in turn be locked up and, you know, completely removed from the picture either. So they maintained 25% of seats in parliament as well as several key ministries. And Aung San Suu Kyi was not allowed to become president. And she's still not, which is why she has this special role of state councillor, even though everyone knows she's the one wielding the

power in the country right now. What was it like covering that moment in Myanmar? It was an extraordinary time. I was there when she was released from house arrest. And, you know, there were literal crowds outside of her house, adoring crowds. And then for the election in 2015 where she won the parliamentary majority and was appointed state councillor, which, as we said, is a special position that's sort of the equivalent of the prime minister. And the mood was just so upbeat and so hopeful. You know, if you ask all the very diverse ethnic groups in Myanmar,

they have never sort of seen her as their leader. But even they were very hopeful at that time because she represented something that was a fresh start and that wasn't the military. And so pretty much all of their hopes and dreams for the future of the country were pinned on her. And to a certain extent extent they still are. And I remember being in Myanmar for that election and, you know, shortly afterwards going out into the regions and asking people, you know, what are your expectations now for Aung San Suu Kyi and what do you think is going to happen in the country?

And people were literally saying, well, she's going to give us all colour TVs. I mean, it was literally the expectations, you know, from a country where people were living below the poverty line and were rural poor. Huge expectations. And, you know, there was a sense at that point that she was never going to be able to live up no matter what she did. So what does she end up doing for people?

Unfortunately, very little. For all the talk, there's now more fighting across Myanmar than there was under the previous government. Having made little progress with peace, Ms Suu Kyi's Year One report card isn't much better elsewhere. There are a lot of reasons why. One is ineffective leadership and her refusal to delegate. I went to, you know, Naypador, which is the capital, to speak to parliamentarians a few years ago.

And basically they were saying that the whole country is bottlenecked with decisions at the State Councillor's office, at Aung San Suu Kyi's office. They can't do anything. They can't even speak in parliament freely without running it past her office at that time. I don't know if it's changed now. But basically, she appointed only people that she could trust.

And some of these people were, you know, leading the ethnic peace process, for instance, that had no background in doing anything like this. But they were people that were in her inner circle. But she is very tight-lipped. no background in doing anything like this, but they were people that were in her inner circle. But she is very tight-lipped. Some say she's very authoritarian in her leadership style. And one of the biggest failures that certainly the young people in Myanmar speak about is her refusal to basically appoint someone or bring up young talent in the party so that there's a future for the National League for Democracy, her party, that goes beyond her. So very quickly, there were a lot of signs that things weren't going to plan,

but that was not matched with a fall in popularity at all. This is largely because of who she is and because of who her father is, and because she is still very much seen as the only alternative to the military, and people still aren't really wanting to give up that dream. What is her relationship with the Rohingya population when she's elected into office? It's really complicated because the Rohingya population largely ignored by everyone in the country. I talked about the various ethnic groups before. Well, the one thing that unites the entire country is the hatred of the Rohingya. So it would be political suicide for her to stand up for the Rohingya, even though she has this

image in the West as the Nobel Peace Prize winner and a human rights advocate. We really don't know what personally Aung San Suu Kyi thinks of the Rohingya, but it's fairly likely and reasonable to make an assumption that she really also thinks the same as everyone else in the country, which is that they are not part of the country, that they don't belong there, even though there is evidence that for hundreds of years, Rohingya people and Muslim people have existed, particularly in Rakhine State in the west of the country. And so what happens to the Rohingyas as she does not stand up for them in the next several years?

They are literally one of the world's most persecuted peoples. The beauty of Myanmar's northern Rohingya state They are literally one of the world's most persecuted peoples. The beauty of Myanmar's northern Rohingya state belies the grim reality facing the 800,000 members of the Muslim minority who live here. From 2012, there were hundreds of thousands of Rohingya literally locked up in camps in Rakhine State and just left to live in squalor. Their houses had been burnt down. They had nowhere to go.

And then, surprise, surprise, a ethnic group that largely did not have any kind of fundamentalist or terrorist tendencies, young people start to hit back against the police and security forces. The conflict was triggered by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, known as ARSA, an insurgency group. Its fighters attacked dozens of police and army posts across Myanmar's Rakhine state, funded partially by private donors in Saudi Arabia. Then the military's reaction against that small group, they just went berserk. This 64-year-old woman says members of the border security force and soldiers entered

her house. She says the men raped the women, many times in front of their families. Another woman says her son was one of the more than 100 men rounded up following the violence. She says he was beaten in front of the house and later died in prison. We will never know the exact extent of what happened in Rakhine State, but we can guess from the testimonies of people, from satellite imagery, from all the evidence that's come forward and now been heard in various courts, you know, it was absolutely terrible. Other Nobel Peace Prize winners actually appealed to Aung San Suu Kyi to do something, to say something, and she didn't. Now that there's this, you know, decision from the International Court of Justice and,

you know, a promised future decision as well, is this an opportunity for her to maybe take a different approach to these people who she has thus far sort of abandoned? I think by now we have seen that Aung San Suu Kyi is incredibly resilient in the face of any kind of condemnation, whether it be from the military junta while she was under house arrest or from the international community now. She has spoken over and over again to journalists and, you know, overseas, and she doesn't even utter the word Rohingya. She holds the line that this is something that her country should resolve. It's an internal ethnic dispute. So I think there's absolutely no way that we're

going to see her reverse her tune on this. So where does that leave the Rohingya? It leaves them in limbo. It's one of the most sad and distressing stories I've ever covered in my history as a journalist. It's something that, to this day, I will lose sleep over because the conditions that people are living under, the lives lost, the houses lost, the whole system that has left these people stateless, penniless

and living in absolute squalor where no one wants them is just a travesty. And it's not just an indictment on Aung San Suu Kyi and on the military in Myanmar. It's an indictment on us all. Thank you.