briefing paper on military intervention by khin ma ma myo
TRANSCRIPT
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
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 2/22
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
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 3/22
3
Executive Summary
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 4/22
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.
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 5/22
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
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 6/22
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
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 7/22
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.
8/14/2019 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 8/22
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
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 9/22
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
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 10/22
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
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 11/22
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
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 12/22
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
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 13/22
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
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 14/22
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
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 15/22
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 16/22
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
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 17/22
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
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 18/22
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
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 19/22
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)
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 20/22
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.
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 21/22
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.
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 22/22
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)