Myanmar’s race between justice and legitimacy

Guest contributor Salai Za Uk Ling Over the past several days in Geneva, my colleagues and I from the Chin Human Rights Organization (CHRO) have engaged with the Human Rights Council, the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), diplomatic missions, international human rights organizations and faith-based partners. Throughout these discussions, we have tried to bring attention back to the experiences of people who rarely have the opportunity to speak directly in these international spaces, including communities living through continuing airstrikes, displacement, sexual violence, attacks on religious freedom and enforced disappearance. As I listened to the Enhanced Interactive Dialogue on Myanmar and reflected on our discussions throughout the week, I kept returning to a question I raised at an earlier session of the Council: after everything we have witnessed, and after all the brutality, suffering and inhumanity that have been documented, what is still preventing us from translating what our human conscience tells us into action? The question is becoming more urgent because accountability and political normalisation are moving in opposite directions. Evidence of serious international crimes is becoming stronger and more specific, while the military leadership is simultaneously seeking greater diplomatic acceptance and international legitimacy. Min Aung Hlaing is travelling abroad more frequently, including his state visit to Cambodia this week. The military continues to demand restoration of its political participation in ASEAN and recognition of its claim to represent Myanmar internationally. The danger is that, if it can withstand international pressure for long enough and gradually rebuild diplomatic relationships, the passage of time itself may become an instrument of impunity. When consequences are portrayed as injustice The response of Myanmar’s Permanent Mission in Geneva to this week’s Enhanced Interactive Dialogue was revealing. Once again, it complained about Myanmar being discussed without the participation of what it described as the “country concerned”, while rejecting the legitimacy and findings of the IIMM. Similar complaints have repeatedly been made about restrictions on the military’s representation within ASEAN and other international forums. What is consistently missing is acknowledgement of why those restrictions arose. The military seized power from an elected government in 2021 and subsequently used extraordinary violence against those who opposed its rule. It has repeatedly failed to implement the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus and continues to reject international accountability mechanisms investigating allegations of serious international crimes. Its international isolation did not occur without cause. It followed its own actions. Yet the military increasingly seeks to separate the consequence from the cause. Restrictions on its representation are presented as unfair treatment, while the conduct that produced those restrictions disappears from the argument. This is one of the most corrosive effects of prolonged impunity. If meaningful consequences are delayed for long enough, those responsible can eventually portray accountability itself as an injustice. Geneva has issued a clear warning This is why the warning delivered by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk this week was so important. He cautioned against normalising relations with Myanmar’s military without evidence that they are complying with their fundamental obligations under international law, warning that such normalisation could fuel further violence and violations. He also made clear that the international response requires more than what has been described as “calibrated engagement”. Engagement must instead be anchored in human rights, civilian protection, measurable benchmarks and accountability. Importantly, he called for the full situation in Myanmar to be referred to the International Criminal Court. At the same dialogue, IIMM Head Nicholas Koumjian demonstrated why that warning is grounded in increasingly concrete evidence. He reported that serious international crimes are being committed with greater frequency and intensity. The IIMM has identified military units involved in aerial attacks and the airbases from which they operate, while investigations into torture have identified commanders and interrogators in military-run detention facilities. The significance of this progress should not be underestimated. International investigators are moving beyond establishing patterns of violations towards identifying structures and individuals potentially responsible for them. Yet, at precisely the moment when evidence capable of supporting criminal accountability is becoming more specific, political normalisation is also gathering pace. International justice is already years behind the victims The International Criminal Court illustrates how far accountability has fallen behind events. In November 2024, the ICC Prosecutor applied for an arrest warrant against Min Aung Hlaing for alleged crimes against humanity involving the deportation and persecution of the Rohingya. Justice for the Rohingya remains essential and long overdue. However, we should confront the chronology honestly. The crimes underlying that application relate to atrocities beginning in 2017, several years before the coup. While international criminal justice is still struggling to deliver accountability for those crimes, an enormous additional body of alleged international crimes has accumulated across Myanmar since 2021. For more than five years, communities have endured aerial attacks, village burnings, arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence, attacks on religious communities and massive displacement. The people waiting for justice are doing so while simultaneously trying to survive continuing and, in many places, increasing violence. The Rohingya experience should therefore serve as a warning for the whole country. When serious international crimes remain without meaningful consequences, impunity becomes entrenched and perpetrators gain confidence. The failure to achieve accountability for earlier atrocities did not prevent further violence. Instead, the same military subsequently seized power and inflicted enormous suffering upon communities across Myanmar. We should not allow another generation of victims to spend years waiting for international justice to catch up. The ICC should act while