Implications of the ICC’s Arrest Warrant for Myanmar’s Leader

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: Myanmar’s military leader, Min Aung Hlaing, is facing charges of committing crimes against humanity for the killing and persecution of Rohingya Muslims. The crimes, which affected more than a million people in Myanmar, took place between August and December 2017. During this period, the Myanmar military launched an operation called “clearance” under the pretext of fighting armed groups that led to the genocide of Muslims in Rakhine State in western Myanmar. This operation was accompanied by the widespread killing of more than 200,000 Rohingya Muslims and the displacement of about 700,000 people. The International Criminal Court has identified these actions as examples of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Farshad Adel – Secretary General of Iran-China Strategic Studies Think Tank

Despite the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’s request for Min Aung Hlaing’s arrest, no warrant has been issued so far. Even if a verdict is issued, its implementation will face serious challenges and restrictions, given that Myanmar is not a court member.

But the move has potential consequences. For example, Min Aung Hlaing could face restrictions on international travel. He and his associates could face assets frozen or confiscated in countries where they are court members. The move could further isolate him diplomatically and subject his family members to increased scrutiny of their financial transactions and international travel. In addition, the ICC’s judicial approach could pave the way for more future verdicts against other senior Myanmar officials.

The initial impact of this move will be on the Rohingya community and the Muslims of Myanmar. The verdict offers a glimmer of hope for justice among them, as the condemnation of the genocide of Myanmar’s Muslims acknowledges their suffering and may provide some solace.

Such a ruling could also have an impact on Indian politics. In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of divisions between Buddhists and Muslims in this country, which is somewhat similar to the treatment of Buddhist rulers in Myanmar with Muslims in this country. This ruling may encourage the Indian government to be more careful in managing tensions and interacting with the Muslim community. However, it should be borne in mind that the path of prosecution by the International Criminal Court is long and uncertain, and expectations must be managed realistically.

One of the significant obstacles to implementing this ruling is the non-membership of China and the United States in the International Criminal Court. Although the United States had signed the document establishing the Court, it did not ratify it and eventually withdrew its signature. The country had concerns about the threat to national sovereignty and the possibility of its citizens being prosecuted by the Court. China also opposed the Rome Statute, the document establishing the International Criminal Court, from the beginning. It did not sign it because it believed the Court should not interfere in countries’ internal affairs.

The two world powers are not members of the Court, so it is unlikely that they would support or take action on such a ruling. For this reason, the ruling will have little impact on the economic and political relations between China and Myanmar. In recent years, the two have upgraded their cooperation to a comprehensive strategic partnership, and projects such as the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor and oil and gas pipelines between the two countries demonstrate their extensive cooperation.

ICC rulings are binding under international law, but their implementation depends on the cooperation of states. Although these rulings can be accompanied by diplomatic pressure or international sanctions, the political interests and veto rights of the Security Council’s permanent members often prevent effective pressure.

Finally, the request for the arrest of Min Aung Hlaing, or even the issuance of arrest warrants for other similar individuals, such as Netanyahu and Gallant, cannot be expected to impact the performance of non-member states towards the Court significantly. The only overarching effect of these sentences is their moral impact; that is, the tarnishing of the image of the convicted in world public opinion and possibly a change in the behavior of some countries to prevent damage to their international and moral reputation.