WAR IN ETHNIC STATES: Is the Tatmadaw waging a just war?
Lately, the
military bloc's supporter, obviously made up of Union Solidarity Development
Party (USDP) members, former and active soldiers in civil and sympathizers have
staged demonstration to support the Military's or Tatmadaw's “war of justice”
or “just war” in Rangoon (Yangon), Moulmein (Mawlamyaing) and recently in
Mandalay. Similar events would also take place in other cities according to the
news sources.
The
demonstration or rally in Mandalay, on January 15, was said to be attended by
some two thousand people marching from Mandalathiri football stadium to
Manawyaman park, where speeches were delivered and letters of support for the
justified war occasion were read out, sent from some small nationalist parties,
which some of them also attended.
Although the
last two rallies that supported the military offensives against the Ethnic
Armed Organizations (EAOs) in Shan and Kachin States, which claimed to be a
justified war, were peaceful, the recent one in Mandalay has not been the case.
An anti-war
motorcyclist Ko Thae Nit Aung bearing an anti-war vinyl banner, at the back of
the seat, passing through the demonstration crowd was manhandled and the
Irrawaddy’s photographer Zaw Zaw was also attacked for photographing the
assault on the lone protester.
The incidents
might be small ones, but if this could lead to the political division among the
mass, like protest and counter-protest of the red and yellow shirt major
groupings that had paralyzed Thailand, leading to the military coup. Similarly,
Burma might have added another facet of ideological mass conflict of pro-war
and anti-war, apart from the ethnic and communal conflicts, which wouldn't
benefit the ongoing peace negotiation process and national reconciliation
effort in any way.
Let us have a
close look at this war of justice rhetoric and how it could affect or influence
the political climate.
Anti-war
rallies
Massive
anti-war rallies held in Kachin State of Myitkyina last year October and a
peace rally held also last year July, in Rangoon were aimed at pressuring the
government to stop the wars in ethnic States of Kachin and Shan, which are
still ongoing without any sign of let up.
The Tatmadaw
offensives on Kachin Independence Army (KIA) positions, notably along the
Burma-China border where the Kachin headquarters Laiza is located, started in
earnest on the heels of the State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi initiated 21st
Century Panglong Conference (21CPC) of August
31 to September 3, last year.
After enduring
some three months of the Tatmadaw military onslaught, the KIA thought out a
strategy to take the heat away from its besieged forces in Kachin State,
decided to launch a counter-offensive in Muse Township of northern Shan State
together with the Kokang or Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA),
Ta'ang National Liberation Army (TNLA) and Arakan Army (AA), calling itself
Northern Alliance – Burma (NA-B), on November 20 last year.
Consequently, the
Tatmadaw heightened its attacks on the KIA positions in Kachin State and to
date has overrun seven bases in total, including two strategic mountain
outposts – Lai Hpawng and Gideon, using airstrikes, heavy artillery bombardment
and massive infantry deployment at a tremendously high human toll and financial
cost.
But the
collateral damage resulting from the armed engagements in Kachin and Shan
States were squarely placed on the shoulders of the NA-B by the Military, to
justify its policy of total annihilation and escalation of the armed
confrontation, under the banner of a just war.
Just war
Accordingly,
the supporters of military offensives echoed the line of Tatmadaw tagging the
NA-B members as terrorist organizations that have to be eliminated, as they are
infringing on national sovereignty and disrupting, destroying individual and
public properties, aside from levying taxed or protection money, as the
Tatmadaw is inclined to term, on the population, among others.
This sentiment
or reasoning, repeatedly used to attack the EAOs by the Tatmadaw, was aired and
reiterated by Hla Swe of USDP, a former parliamentarian MP during President
Thein Sein government, who was also one of the leading participants and an
orator during the Mandalay's just war demonstration recently, on January 15.
Prior to this,
in a BBC Burmese discussion program of “Global and Burma Affairs” on January
13, where Hla Swe, Khun Ja of Kachin Peace Network, and ethnic affairs observer
and analyst Maung Maung Soe participated,
Hla Swe gleefully said: “In Sri Lanka the Tamil Tigers that had stood on
the three point position of no ceasefire, no negotiation and fight for
independence were totally eliminated (by the government troops) and there is no
one left now. I see that if the golden opportunity invitation now is taken (by
the EAOs) they will be better off.”
During the
discussion earlier, when asked what should be done to be all-inclusive in the
peace process, he replied: “It depends on the leaders. If the 21st
Century Panglong Conference is called and there is no (positive) result, the
EAOs could be crushed.”
The
Commander-in-Chief has time and again also made known publicly the Tatmadaw's
stance of surrender for the excluded three EAOs – MNDAA, TNLA and AA – and
pressuring the KIA, which is also head of the United Nationalities Federal
Council (UNFC) to sign the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) without
alteration, so that they will be allowed participation in the 21CPC or Union
Peace Conference (UPC).
Criteria of a
just war
The brief and
summarized explanation of the just war theory is written by Richard N. Haas,
President, Council on Foreign Relations, in his short piece “When is War
Justifiable?”, in May 5, 2009, as follows:
·
Just war theory today is a
composite that has evolved from ideas developed by various religious figures.
In the 5th century, St. Augustine discussed in City of God the circumstances
under which killing could be justified and empires legitimately expanded. In
the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas laid out a more elaborate just war doctrine
in his Summa Theologica. He wrote that three conditions were necessary to make
a war just: it must be ordered by a competent authority; the cause must be
just; and the combatants must have "a right intention, so that they intend
the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil."
·
Modern just war guidance
involves both the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum) and how to fight one
(jus in bello). This latter set of criteria focuses on proportionality (how
much force is used), targeting (avoiding non-combatants), and means (avoiding
certain classes of weapons).
Assessment of
the Military's just war rhetoric
If we look at
the recent conflict situation between the Tatmadaw and the EAOs, the decision
to go to war from the part of the former is hardly appropriate and convincing,
seen from the given set of just war criteria.
Firstly, it
was not ordered by the competent authority as the Tatmadaw is not the
government, but pursuing its own policy and implementing it, within the mode of
“a state within the state”. While the NLD civilian government is tight-lipped
on the Tatmadaw's offensives on the EAOs, for whatever reason it might have in
store, it has never officially declared war or spelled out that it supported
the Tatmadaw's actions. In contrast, the NLD official position is
all-inclusiveness participation of all the EAOs and ending the war through
peaceful negotiation, while the Tatmadaw is for the exclusion of the three EAOs
– MNDAA, TNLA and AA - that it dislike and using military means to force the remaining
EAOs that are yet to sign the NCA give in to its prescribed conditions.
Thus, the
Tatmadaw is in no way a competent authority to wage or order a just war.
Secondly, the
question of whether the cause is just from the point of the Tatmadaw going to
war against the EAOs, it is quite clear that is not the case.
Most of the
EAOs went into rebellion, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, to wrestle
back their rights of self-determination, which were hijacked or stolen from
them by the successive military and also Bamar-dominated civilian governments
and treated them as if they were colonial possessions.
In trying to
right this wrong the EAOs are now ready and set to negotiate through political
means peacefully, as the military solution is not tenable, and are just waiting
for the agreement of the Tatmadaw to accept all-inclusiveness participation
that have been denied to some, coupled with waging war on them.
Thus, this war
cannot be a just war, as there are many peaceful solution available and the
Tatmadaw is choosing war, to gain political edge and not interested in a fair
deal to end the conflict.
Thirdly, the
question of whether the Tatmadaw has "a right intention, so that they
intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil," one has to say
it doesn't cater to any of the mentioned reasonable intention.
The Tatmadaw
intention is to lord over the ethnic nationalities without consideration of
agreeing to their aspirations of equality, rights of self-determination,
democracy and establishment of a genuine federal union.
Thus, the war
is waged with ill intention of subjugating the ethnic nationalities and just to
continue the rule over them.
Fourthly, on
the questions of proportionality (how much force is used), targeting (avoiding
non-combatants), and means (avoiding certain classes of weapons), indications
are also not positive.
The
proportionality of arsenal used are lopsided, as the Tatmadaw is employing
advanced military aircraft and heavy artillery against lightly armed EAOs,
begging the question of whether it is internationally acceptable to use jet
fighters and helicopter gunships in a civil war.
Avoiding to
target non-combatants is simply not the strong point of the Tatmadaw, as it
sees the ethnic population hostile to its occupation troops and is convinced
that most are sympathetic to the ethnic resistance armies. The Tatmadaw has
indoctrinated its troops to treat the ethnic peoples along this line. Thus, the
many extra-judicial killings, aerial and heavy artillery bombardments on ethnic
settlement causing damage to properties and human lives have become the order
of the day for the Tatmadaw in its occupation of the ethnic states.
The human
rights violations on ethnic population is nothing new to the Tatmadaw, in its
war of occupation that has been going on for decades and it is not about to be
enlightened and become civil, in the sense of taking orders from the civilian
government and turned into the protector of democratic principles.
The
decades-long human rights abuses are well documented by reputed international
rights organizations. But the toning down of the United Nations and European
Union on human rights' score, so as to encourage the Tatmadaw to endorse
democratization is just a wishful-thinking and only embolden the Tatmadaw as the
license to commit gross human rights violations.
Some of the
recent following episodes would shed real light on the outcome of this
misleading concept.
·
Three civilians were killed and seven injured,
including two women and a five-year-old child, when two Burma Army jets
indiscriminately bombed Pang Mark Mur village, Kyaukme township, northern Shan
State, on December 26, 2016. (Shan Human Rights Foundation - January 16, 2017)
·
Two people were killed and eight were wounded
when an artillery shell landed on a civilian house in Namhsan Township, Shan
State on January 12 morning, according to local sources. One of the dead was an
eight-year-old student who lived in the house, and the other was a dance
instructor who had traveled from Mandalay to teach. The two deceased victims
were killed instantly, according to Namhsan Township lawmaker Mai Win Htoo.
(The Irrawaddy – January 13, 2017)
·
Air strikes destroyed the buildings of civilians
in the Mong Koe town and four civilians were killed in the clashes. According
to official reports, the number of civilians injured so far has reached 63. At
least 5000 have been displaced by the fighting, including more than 3600 who,
Chinese state media has said, fled over the border. (Myanmar Times – December
6, 2016)
·
Some 80 civilian hostages were taken by the
Tatmadaw, during the NA-B siege of Mong Koe in November last year, which were
said to be used as human shields to protect its outpost, according to the NA-B
sources. They were later rescued by the NA-B. (NA-B Facebook)
·
A battalion of Tatmadaw soldiers, who arrived in
Mong Yaw sub-township on June 25 looking for Shan rebel troops, shot dead five
villagers during an interrogation near a cornfield where some of them were
working and dumped their bodies in shallow graves. (Radio Free Asia – July 21,
2016)
All in all,
the call for supporting the just war rings hollow, as it is design to advance
the program of the ethnocentric Military and Bamar political class, continued
political monopoly, no justification could be found and the act would only be
like pouring more oil in the already burning flames of animosity and hatred.
The people
that support this just war rhetoric would be well advised to refrain from
endorsing it further, so that not become the culprit of creating another
pro-war and anti-war ideological conflict that would split the mass into two,
further driving the country into destruction and abyss.
Tags: Opinion
