One Year on: Rohingya Peoples Still Living in Refugee Camps in Bangladesh

It’s been a year since the Myanmar (Burma) military, conducted raids on Rohingya villages in Rakhine state. The so called ‘clearance operations,’ as described by the military were to find Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa) militants, who on the 25th August 2017, attacked and killed 12 security personnel.



For over a month, the Myanmar military were claimed to have attacked hundreds of villages, burning, lutting, killing and raping along the way - forcing over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to refugee camps across the border in Bangladesh. The Myanmar authorities both civilian and military denied the extent of the violent crackdown, calling the operation as anti-terrorism raids.

The international community were slow in condemning the actions by the Myanmar military, and dithered on a response. The international community published statements calling for the end of the violent crackdown, with some United Nations officials calling the atrocities as ethnic cleansing. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) were unable to agree to take more affirmative action.

A year later, most of the 700,000 Rohingya still live in makeshift camps along the Myanmar/Bangladesh border, while the Myanmar civilian government and the military generals dither on resolving the issues. All that has happened since, is the government led by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi (Prime Minister) have agreed with the Bangladeshi authorities that over the next two years Rohingya refugees will be repatriated back to Rakhine state on a voluntary basis. If and when this process begins, it will have the support of the UNDP and UNHCR, who in June this year signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Myanmar government, to assist in the repatriation process.  These a steps in the right direction for both the Myanmar civilian government and the international community, although without assurances of rights and protections for returning Rohingya, there are no guarantees that similar atrocities and will not occur in the future.



The repatriation process would likely rebuild villages and supply aid for returning Rohingya, but the issue of citizenship and freedom of movement have not been resolved and look unlikely in the near future, that’s if government official signals are correct. The Myanmar government and much of the majority Buddhist population view the Rohingya as Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh and have no rights to Myanmar citizenship since they were stripped of this under the 1982 Citizenship Act. These one million or so stateless peoples can not keep carrying on living in fear and lacking any human rights.

If the international community are advocates of the responsibility to protect, then increased pressure on the Myanmar government and military on the issue of citizenship and protection is required. The only major steps of cohesion on the Myanmar government and military has been a few statements of condemnation from world leaders, and limited unilateral sanctions. A year after the crackdown, the U.S have placed sanctions on a few military generals and police officials .

Myanmar is still in democratic transition, and Aung San Suu Kyi is trying to balance civilian governance, while maintaining relations with the military, who still hold sway over security, society and the economy. A return of tougher sanction will do more harm to Aung San’s efforts to bring democracy and rebuild the economy, but more targeted sanctions against key military generals, and a full break in relations with the military establishment by the west could force the hand of the military gripe over Myanmar

As for accountability for the inproportionate attacks on the Rohingya population,  There has been calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the military actions - although Myanmar is a non-party to  the Rome statute, the UNSC has the power to refer the case to the ICC. Though it is not as straightforward, this would require agreement by all members including the permanent five (U.S, UK French, Russia & China). China has been reluctant to blame or pressure the Myanmar government or military in the past and would likely block any moves to refer a case to the ICC. Nonetheless this is an avenue that other council members need to keep pushing, as the only real prospect for international action against the Myanmar military.

Furthermore, the Myanmar civilian government has announced a independent commission of inquiry into human rights violations during the August 2017 crackdown. Not much detail has been released, except that the commission will include a mix of domestic and international representatives and experts. On paper, this sounds like owning up to responsibility for the violence, but how independent will it be. Will the military establishment fully cooperate? As most Rohingya refugees will not be returning to Myanmar any time soon, will the commision visit the refugee camps in Bangladesh and talk to refugees about their experiences? Will the commission have the power to prosecute or at least recommend individuals to be put on trial? Theses questions have not been answered yet - and likely this commission will just show that the government is taking action, but nothing concrete happens. The military for instance are unlikely to cooperate or allow their personnel to be prosecuted. And the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh are likely not want to talk to a commission of enquiry conducted on behalf of the Myanmar government, who have not stood up for their rights, independent or not. To overcome these issues, a more independent commission would be better of been run by the UN, even in cooperation with the Myanmar’s own independent  commission.

The Race to the United Nations Hotseat

As we are gripped by the Presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, another less newsworthy contest is taking place in another part of the United States, that been in the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

In the past 5 months, the International organisation has been in the process of deciding who will take over from  Ban-Ki Moon, as the next Secretary-General of the UN. All up 11 candidates have put their names in the hat to become the next chief diplomat and administrator of the UN. Six men and five women are contesting for the role–coming from different regions and backgrounds–some have formerly held elected office in their perspective countries or head of UN departments or other international organisations.

The process of choosing the next SG has changed slightly, with each candidate having the opportunity to be interviewed by members of the General Assembly (GA), and hold a live debate. This is the first time that such events have happened within the process of choosing a SG. Some might think that a candidate is elected by all UN members, but that is far from the truth, only the 15 members of the Security Council (UNSC), in behind closed door meetings decide in a number of rounds of what's called  ‘straw polling,’ on who they would present to the GA as their preferred candidate, who then technically rubber stamp the least objectionable person of the Permanent five UNSC members (P5: U.S, UK, France, Russia and China). So in reality the P5, especially the U.S and Russia come to some agreement on which candidate will best suit their own interests, rather than someone who can best manage the UN and deal with current and future crisis or events crippling the world.

Many UN analysts, commentators and the media predicted at the beginning of the process, that Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, the current head of UNESCO would likely become the next UNSG-but the former Portuguese Prime Minister and UN high commissioner for refugees António Guterre is leading the contest, with the most support among the UNSC members, after the first few straw poll meetings. Ms Bokova was seen as favourite, as there seems to be an unwritten rule that regions take turns to have a UNSG, and as a Eastern European has not held this position in the past, that it was time for a candidate from this region, for which Russia has supported this notion. Furthermore, there has also been support for a women Secretary-General.

Although Ms Bokova is well qualified and experienced, along with all the other candidates, but it seems the U.S and other member states are more inclined towards Mr Guterre, as the new UNSG. We must assume that the U.S own national interests lay with Mr Guterre, as a safe bet, rather than obliging to the calls for choosing  a women, and from a Eastern European state, by not considering Ms Bokova. Unless Russia begins to voice an outright rejection of Mr Guterre, and fully commit to having a Eastern European take the position, we will likely Mr Guterre or another male candidate as the next Secretary-General. If Russia does outright reject Mr Guterre, another candidate, Miroslav Lajcak, the Slovak foreign minister, has raced up to second position, and could become the preferred choice, if both the U.S and Russia are still at loggerheads.  

It is a shame that a women candidate could not be in serious consideration for the position, as it is about time that gender not be an issue when choosing the next head of the UN. Ms Bokova is as qualified and experienced as Mr Guterre, but due to past cold war animosities and the current international system, the U.S was always inclined not to proffer a candidate from an Eastern European state, especially Ms Bokova who has irritated the U.S in the past.  

So as it currently stands, a women candidate may have to wait till next time, as either the front runner Mr Guterre, or second placed Mr Lajcak are likely to become the next UNSG, unless no agreement is found over these two candidates, meaning we might get a surprise chose. The announcement of who takes over from Ban Ki-Moon should be made in November, and until then it will be interesting to see how far the U.S and Russia will go to block each others preferred  candidates. But at some stage over the next two-three months a compromise  will have to be made. Watch this space.  

More Global Cooperation Required to Fight ISIS and Bring Peace to Syria

On  24th November, a Russian Su-24 jet fighter was shot down by the Turkish military on the border between Turkey and Syria. This is the first time a Russian military aircraft has been in an incident over the skies of Syria, since began its operations in support of Syrian government forces, against Islamic State and other rebel groups in September.

This shooting down of a Russian fighter jet by a NATO member has shown the risks that a lack of cooperation between all actors, either state or non-state has in the theatre of war. It was inevitable that this sort of incident would occur, when you have so many parties involved in the fight in Syria. Apart from the United States led coalition and Russia deploying military resources in Syria, there are also the Syrian government, ISIS and many other rebel groups fighting for their own interests. It seems that all these different actors have their own agenda for fighting and in some cases targeting groups with similar interests.

The civil war in Syria is in its fourth year and many other actors have been drawn into to conflict since it began in 2011. The most divisive has been the so called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who have occupied large territory in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS seems to be fighting on a number of fronts and against a number of actors or states. They have declared war against anyone who does not support their extremists’ views and have committed many atrocities in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Paris and many more places.

The dimensions of the Syrian civil war have changed over the past few years, with an increased focus in defeating ISIS, and even more so since the latest attacks in Paris, Beirut and the Sinai Peninsula. Since these recent terrorist attacks, member states of the United Nations Security Council have voted to call for the international community to use "all necessary measures" to fight ISIS. Russia has also since September this year in support of the Syrian government started targeting ISIS and on many other occasions attacked other rebel positions. Also, since the 13^th November terrorist attacks in Paris, French has sent an aircraft carrier to the region, doubling their efforts against ISIS. In the United Kingdom, there is a debate on if RAF jets should begin participating in targeting ISIS in not just Iraq, but also Syria. Speculation is that the UK will have to get involved, although some politicians and commentators are still sceptical of this action. 

With so many different groups and countries involved in the Syrian civil war, the issue of how to end the conflict and defeat ISIS and other extremists is becoming more urgent, but also difficult, as the years and months go by. There have been opportunities for the international community to step in and halt the conflict, but concrete action has failed every time. The United States and its western allies, who support the moderate Syrian rebels, want Bashar al-Assad to step down, and for a transitional government to take over, but Russia disagrees with this plan, as they view Assad’s government as the only group to keep stability and order in Syria. Also, Russia has other more economic and strategic interests in maintaining support for Assad.

The options that I think will need to happen to bring peace and stability to Syria, is, first a global effort that includes Russia and Iran to work as a coalition of nations to combat the threat of ISIS around the world. Second, for renewed efforts from all actors involved in the Syrian conflict to find a peaceful resolution. All that ISIS are doing is using the political vacuum left because of the Syrian civil war to create a so called caliphate in the middle East and attack its enemies.

To prevent further incidents like the one on Tuesday there needs to be a better understanding and cooperation between NATO members and Russia. Having two separate operations to combat ISIS will not be effective and may lead to further cases of shooting down of each other’s aircraft. The issue is that the western coalition does not agree with Russia’s support of Assad, which is undermining efforts to bring peace to Syria. So until there is more cooperation between all sides, defeating ISIS and bringing peace to Syria may be a lot harder to achieve.       

Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

How and Why the United Nations needs to be Reformed

Over the last month or so, I have been writing a number of blog posts on the United Nations (UN), focusing on the structure of the system and why I think it does not work. I have outlined some reasons for such, including too much power and influence in the hands of just 5 permanent member states (P-5). With the differing national interests and political ideologies, the UN, especially the UNSC is in need of reform.

For many decades there have been many discussions and debates on the issue of a requirement for reform of the UN system, but nothing as progressed beyond mere talking. There has only been one major change to the structure of the UN, and that was back in the 1960’s, when the UNSC increased from 11 members to 15, as to accommodate the increase in new member states during the era of decolonization. Apart from this increase nothing has changed.

Perhaps one area that could be reformed is broadening the participation in the UNSC. The international system has changed since the founding of the UN in 1945, and many more new nations have gained independence, with some increasing  their power and influence over the last 60 years or so. The current UN system has not allowed for this transgression of these major changes, and this can be argued as leading to the ineffectiveness of the UN. So perhaps what could be discussed and implemented would be to increase the number of permanent seats in the UNSC. It would be unlikely that any of the current P-5 members would give up their prominent place in world affairs, so they would still need to keep their positions. But giving for instance, Germany, Japan, Brazil and even India a permanent seat would acknowledge these changes in the international system and the rise in power and influence that these states now occupy on the global stage. Although, increasing the number of permanent seats in the UNSC may not solve the ineffectiveness of the organisation, and could further complicate its ability to maintain international peace and security, but it would make it more representative of the current state of world affairs.

Furthermore, to prevent national interests of the P-5 from been major considerations in the decision making process, and causes for stalemate in the UNSC, the power of veto could be removed from the hands of permanent members. Such a reform could be difficult to gain agreement from the P-5, as they would likely be reluctant to give up such power and influence that the veto brings them. But I think if the global community and more specifically the P-5 want to have an organisation that can effectively maintain international peace and security, there should be more equality for all member states, not just the privileged few.

Why the United Nations System does not work?

Earlier this week I wrote a blog on the workings of the United Nations (UN) system, explaining the role and structure of the three main organs of the organisation. I am going to carry on with this theme of the UN, and explain why I think the system does not work.  

Over the last week leaders from member states have convened at the UN headquarters in New York, for the annual meeting of the General Assembly. One of the issues that would likely be discussed will be reform of the system, although I think and suspect others will likewise  that the UN system will be the same next year. Also, the situation in Syria will be centre stage, especially since a new resolution needs to be agreed upon by the UN Security Council (UNSC), concerning Syria’s agreed disarmament of its chemical weapons.

Most of the power within the UN system lies in the UNSC, where key issues dealing with maintaining international peace and security are discussed and decisions are made. Although each member on the UNSC has a vote and some influence in any decisions, the real power belongs to the five permanent states (US, UK, French, Russia and China), who all have vetoes over the decisions of the council. 

The problem with giving just five members state so much power in world affairs has led to the abuse of this system. Any issues discussed or draft resolution presented at the UNSC can be vetoed by any of the P-5, meaning that if this occurs, the thus resolution is not adopted. The conflict in Syria and the UNSC gridlock is a recent example, though there has been many more in the past, where P-5 members have vetoed draft resolutions even if majority of the global community are in agreeance. In the case of Syria, Russia and China has vetoed three draft resolutions presented to the council so far. Much of the reasons for a veto from a P-5 member are because of national interests influencing their decisions. Russia’s support for the Assad’s regime is evidence for my case, as they are steadfastly protecting the Syrian government at the UN, because national interest are trumping over any international criticisms. Russia has its only naval facility in the Mediterranean in the port city of Tartus, Syria, and also has many economic interests in the country, which they are unlikely to give up.

Another reason for vetoes is also due to the UN Charta, which advocates that all states have the rights to non-intervention and sovereignty over their territory. Russia and China for example have rejected any international intervention in Syria and in other cases, arguing that member states should not intervene in other member’s internal affairs.

Although I am using Russia as an example, the other P-5 states make decision on national interests as well. The US for example, in 1994 was reluctant to intervene in preventing genocide in Rwanda, because of the death of 18 American soldiers in Somalia a couple of years before, and public opinion and other concerns did not warrant the risk of intervening to prevent the killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Rwanda.      

With the power of the UN system in the hands of just five member states, who all have at times different interests, this has lead to indecision and gridlock on many occasions.

How the system is structured has effectively prevented appropriate responses and actions by the global community in avoiding or ending many conflicts.

As a former UK diplomat Carne Ross,  once said, "One of the very odd things that I experienced when I was on the Council, was that the one group of people you could guarantee would not be consulted on what was being discussed in the Security Council were the people most affected  So whether it's Iraqis, Kosovars, Sudanese, or Syrians their legitimate representatives would never get a chance to have a say on what they thought the Council - what the world should do,"

To conclude I would like to say that the UN does have its merits in promoting development and providing humanitarian aid, along with health and education to millions across the world, sometimes on a limited budget.  

The Workings of the United Nations System

The United Nations System (UN) was founded in 1945 in the aftermath of two world wars, and was the brainchild of the three victories nations of WW2,  the US, UK and Soviet Union (Russia), aimed at saving future generations from the scourges of war. The objectives of the newly formed organisation of states are to protect international peace and security by preventing the need for war, through a notion of cooperation and collective security. To achieve these objectives, the UN has two main organs (institutions), the United Nations Security council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (GA), along with a number of departments and agencies that deal with a range of issues from human rights to providing aid and development across the globe. The GA is in a way a world parliament, with almost all nations represented. Each member state has one vote, with a two-thirds majority required for any decisions on key issues such as admission of new members and UN budgets. Also decisions are non-binding.

The UNSC on the other hand does bind all member states to any decisions made by the council, and is the main organ given the powers to achieve the objectives of international peace and security. The UNSC is made up of 15 member states of which 5 are permanent, known as the P-5 (US, UK, French, Russia and China) and 10 non-permanent members who serve for two year terms. The UNSC is the main decision making body in the UN and has the role of deciding if the international community will intervene in certain conflicts by either adopting sanctions or deploying peacekeepers. For any resolution to be adopted requires 9 council members agreeing, although the P-5 can veto any decisions made in the council.

Finally there is the Secretary-General (SG) who is elected by the General Assembly on the advice from the Security Council. Their main role is mostly as the chief administrator of the organisation, although the charter does give the power of the SG  to bring to the attention of the UNSC of any issue that he or she thinks is of concern relating to international peace and security. The SG and his office also play the role of chief diplomat promoting international peace and security.        

Iran Turning To A More Transparent Nuclear Plan

If the words of Hassan Rouhani, the newly elected Iranian President are true, the nuclear standoff between Iran and the international community looks to be turning a corner. Over the weekend, Rouhani announced at a post election press conference, that Iran needs to be more transparent with its nuclear program.  

Rouhani is seen as a moderate leader than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became a thorn to the international community’s actions to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While Rouhani stated that Iran will come to the negotiation table with the international community to solve the nuclear issue, he also said that Iran will not stop uranium enrichment, as the program is within the rules of the international framework.    

This re-engagement by President Rouhani is welcoming, that’s if the words will translate into actions. Although the international community cannot relax sanction or pressure on Iran just yet, until there are concrete efforts by the new government to convince that their nuclear program is for peaceful means only. I think to progress the stated willingness by President Rouhani, is for the 5+1 group (UNSC permanent five and Germany), to openly welcome a turning point in the relationship between Iran and the international community. 

The only resolution I can see of this issue, is not through military action (which has been the argument of Israel) but for peaceful negotiations, which will have to include the reality that Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear program. On Iran’s part, the stated transparency will hopefully consist of allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor the program. I do think this crisis can be resolved with more open dialogue from both Iran and the international community. And let’s hope for the people of Iran and the rest of the world, that this stand-off can be resolved soon, as we do not want another unnecessary conflict in an already volatile region.