The Convenience of Terrorism in Myanmar

This article first appeared in Lowy's Institute The Interpreter, 12 September 2017

The major and protracted humanitarian crisis in Myanmar's northern Rakhine State has serious local, regional and global implications. Many have rightly deplored the human rights situation and called for urgent humanitarian assistance while the world has become preoccupied with the silence of Aung San Suu Kyi and her fall from grace.
What appears to have gone largely unquestioned, however, is that the military and the government now ascribe the causes of the current conflict to ‘terrorism’. This convenient explanation should not be accepted at face value.
After a series of coordinated attacks against police on 25 August, the government's Anti-Terrorism Committee declared the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) to be a terrorist organisation.
While this is the first time a group has been declared a terrorist organisation under the nation's new Anti-Terrorism Law, branding an armed group as ‘terrorist’ appears to be a new trend in Myanmar. On 20 November 2016, the Northern Alliance - a coalition supported by the Kachin, Talaung, Arakan and Kokang ethnic armed groups - began planned attacks on military and police in northern Shan State. In response, on 3 December, the Defence Minister raised a call to brand the Northern Alliance as a ‘terrorist organisation’ in the lower house of national parliament. The same proposal was then raised in the Shan State Hluttaw by the military members of parliament and the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) where it succeeded, 61 votes to 45.
This declaration of the Northern Alliance as a terrorist organisation was highly controversial. This is not only because it was initiated at the state level, but also because in the past these groups have simply been referred to in Myanmar as 'ethnic armed groups'.
Now the terrorist label is also being applied to the ARSA. This is despite the fact that some of ARSA's tactics are not necessarily different from those used previously by either the military or other armed ethnic groups.
The declaration of ARSA as a terrorist organisation will have far-reaching consequences, some of which will likely result from major deficiencies in the Anti-Terrorism Law itself. For this is a classic example of a ‘model’ law gone very wrong. While some of the provisions are translations from a global model, many recommended safeguards are absent in Myanmar.
The Anti-Terrorism Committee is headed by the Minister of Home Affairs, who in Myanmar is chosen by the military. The Committee’s mandate is broad. There are no requirements to be a member of the Committee, nor any limit on how many members the Committee can have.
The term of office of the members of the Committee is unspecified. The extent, or more importantly the limits, of their powers are unknown. It remains unclear what investigative or evidential basis is needed to justify declaring a group to be a terrorist organisation.
Worryingly, Anti-Terrorism Committee members or members of the public stand to gain financial rewards if they ‘dob in’ a terrorist. There are also blanket immunity clauses for the military and for Committee members. Committee members cannot be prosecuted for any wrongdoing.
Given that some offences under the Anti-Terrorism Law attract the death penalty, there is much at stake. 
In addition to declaring the ARSA a terrorist group, the military and police now appear to be targeting specific individuals under the Anti-Terrorism Law. These tactics mirror the use of the infamous section 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law, used to imprison many journalists and activists. The use of section 66(d) has attracted international condemnation; so too should the Anti-Terrorism Law.
For example, on 1 September, Shwe Maung, a former prominent Rohingya politician for Buthidaung Township (in northern Rakhine State) was charged by police under the Anti-Terrorism Law. His alleged crime is that his Facebook page contains some videos that relate to the ARSA and comments that are perceived to show support for ARSA actions.
Shwe Maung is no stranger to the obsessive and irrational persecution that plagues the Rohingya. He is an example of the falling out between the USDP (backed by the military) and elite Rohingya in northern Rakhine State.
In the 2010 elections, three Rohingya, including Shwe Maung, were elected to constituencies in northern Rakhine State. Over their five years in office, they were hounded and bullied out of national parliament.
In particular, they were extensively and intrusively questioned about their citizenship status. The situation deteriorated to such an extent that Shwe Maung fled to the United States. The police may now seek to extradite him back to Myanmar to face alleged terrorist charges.
This is the toxic and twisted politics of terrorism in Myanmar. It helps to explain the stepped-up persecution of an ethnic group which has forced more than 290,000 people to flee to Bangladesh and constitutes a larger displacement crisis than occurred in 1978, 1991 or 2012.
In Myanmar, where the military has perfected the art of terrorising people over decades, the threats come from many sides.
In recent years, for example, the vitriol of Buddhist nationalist groups has added to the anti-Muslim narrative. However, it doesn't serve the purposes of the security forces to label radical Buddhists, the military or police as terrorists in Myanmar.



2015 (1) 2019 (1) ABF (1) Academic Association (1) Academic writing (1) access to justice (1) ACICIS (1) ADB (3) administrative courts (1) administrative law (3) ADR (1) Ahmadiyah (1) Ahok (5) All Indian Law Reporter (1) Allah (1) amendment (3) American Bar Foundation (1) AMSEAS (5) anthropology (1) ANU (5) army (1) article (1) ASAA (10) ASEAN (2) ASEAN 360 (1) Asia (17) Asia collection (1) Asia Research Institute (1) Asia Society (2) asian century (1) Asian Development Bank (1) Asian law (9) Asian Law Centre (1) Asian Studies (8) AsianLII (2) Attorney General (2) AustLII (1) Australia (13) Australia-ASEAN Summit (1) Australian universities (1) authoritarian regimes (1) authoritarian rule (1) authoritarianism (2) banking and finance (1) Bawaslu (2) blasphemy (8) blasphemy charges (1) Blasphemy Law (2) blogs (1) book (4) book chapter (1) book launch (6) book panel (1) book prize (1) book review (3) books (1) Buddhism (6) Buddhism and law (1) Buddhist law (1) Buffet Institute (1) Burma (59) Burmese language (1) Burmese students (1) Burmese translation (1) bursaries (1) Business (4) call for papers (2) Canada (1) capacity building (2) career advice (1) Cause lawyers (1) Chicago (3) china (2) Christianity (1) citizenship (1) codes (1) colloquium (1) commercial law (7) common law (2) comparative constitutional law (1) comparative law (2) conference (21) conflict (3) constitution (26) constitution-building (1) constitution-making (3) constitutional amendment (2) constitutional change (1) Constitutional Court (5) constitutional law (12) constitutional legacy (1) constitutional reform (1) constitutional review (1) constitutional rights (1) Constitutional Tribunal (6) Constitutional Writs (1) Constitutionalism (9) constitutions (2) corporate law (2) course (1) court reform (2) courts (14) Covid-19 (1) Crisis (1) Culture (1) Dan S Lev (3) database (1) death penalty (1) death sentence (1) deference (1) delegation (1) democracy (9) denial (2) development (3) Dialogue (1) divided societies (1) early career (1) Economics (3) ECR (1) edited book (1) election (1) elections (12) electoral disputes (1) emergency powers (5) engagement (1) ethnic recognition (1) Ethnic rights (1) fatwa (1) Federal Court of Australia (1) foreign policy (1) Forum (3) free trade agreement (1) Futures Asia (1) global law (1) Global Politics and Religion (1) globalisation (1) governor (1) handbook (2) Harvard Law School (1) history (1) Hong Kong (1) Hong Kong University (1) Hooker (1) human rights (5) Human Rights Commission (1) ICON (2) IGD (1) IGLP (1) illiberalism (1) Indonesia (50) Indonesia Council (1) Indonesia Ulama Council (1) Indonesian language (1) Indonesian studies (1) International IDEA (1) international law (1) international students (1) Interview (5) investment (1) IS (1) Islam (19) Islam and the state (1) Islamic law (1) Islamist (2) Jakarta (10) Jokowi (1) journal (3) journal article (6) judges (3) Judicial Colloquium (1) judicial independence (4) judicial review (1) judicial selection (1) justice (1) justice sector (1) Ko Ni (2) korea (1) launch (1) law (26) Law & Policy (1) law and society (6) Law and Society Association (2) law faculty (2) law panels (1) law reform (3) Law School (1) lawyer (2) lawyers (2) lecture (1) legal culture (2) legal education (5) legal pluralism (1) legal process (1) legal profession (1) legal reforms (1) Legal Training (1) Lev (1) local governance (1) LSA (3) Mainland Southeast Asia (6) major projects (1) Malaysia (2) marriage (1) Martin Krygier (1) military (4) military-state (1) minorities (1) moving (1) Muslims (8) Myanmar (137) Myanmar law (1) National Library of Australia (3) nationalism (1) Naypyidaw (2) Nemo (1) New Constitutions (1) new year (1) newsletter (2) NLD (1) Northwestern (2) NUS (2) Oxford (1) panel (1) parliament (2) peace (1) peace process (1) people smuggling (5) PhD (1) Pluralism (1) podcast (1) podcasts (1) political capital (1) political Islam (1) political parties (1) Politics (9) politics of courts (1) populism (1) PPIM (1) President (1) press freedom (2) principles (1) professional legal education (2) publication (1) publishing (1) radio interview (1) Rakhine State (7) rally (1) referendum (1) reform (5) religion (14) religious education (1) religious intolerance (1) report (6) reports (1) research (2) research centre (1) research centres (1) resources (1) Reuters (1) Rights (1) Risks (1) RMIT (1) Rohingya (6) roundtable (2) rule by law (1) rule of law (5) scholars dialogue (1) scholarship (2) scholarships (1) section 144 (1) secularism (1) seminar (18) Shan State (1) Shi'a (1) Shi'ism (1) Singapore (5) social conflict (1) socio-economic rights (1) socio-legal studies (3) Southeast Asia (19) Southeast Asia; Islamic law; electives; UNSW Law; Rule of Law (1) specialised courts (1) Sri Lanka (3) State (1) statelessness (1) students (1) success (1) Supreme Court (6) Sydney (8) teaching (1) terrorism (1) Thailand (4) The Constitution of Myanmar (2) tolerance (1) training (2) transition (1) trial (1) tribute (2) Trisakti University (1) U Ko Ni (5) UAGO (1) UIN (1) UNDP (1) UNHCR (1) University of Indonesia (4) University of Melbourne (5) University of Sydney (1) University of Yangon (1) UNSW (40) UNSW Law (3) videos (1) violence (1) We Stand with you (1) Webinar (1) West (2) West Java (1) Windsor Faculty of Law (1) women (3) Women in Asia (2) Women in Asia Conference (2) working paper (1) workshop (21) world bank (1) writs (4) Yangon (3) youth (1)