Every state has a right and a duty to protect its citizens from terrorism: that right does not extend to genocide.
What is a government to do when it comes to acts of political or ideological violence on its soil? The answer is not complicated. Every state has the authority, and I would add the mandate from its people (whether the state is a democracy in which citizens have a choice or a dictatorship in which there is none), to stop terrorism from happening or post facto punish those who engage in it.
Who would deny a state this right? Not many I would assume. But what if the response to real terrorism is not only highly counterproductive – in that it is overly excessive – but constitutes a crime against humanity? Whether we call it state terrorism or genocide – and I think the two can overlap – it has to be condemned for what it is.
Two recent cases come to mind: China and Myanmar.
China: Genocide against the Uyghur Muslim population
The former is engaged in what everyone is describing as genocide against the Uyghur Muslim population in the northwestern province of Xinjiang. Massive concentration camps euphemistically called ‘vocational training centres’, the massive destruction of mosques and religious buildings, and massive denial of basic freedom of religion all add up to a systematic and government-led attempt to rid China of Islam.
China is engaged in what everyone is describing as genocide against the Uyghur Muslim population in the northwestern province of Xinjiang.
None of this is necessary or right. Despite the very real spectre of Islamist terrorism perpetrated by a very tiny number of Uyghur Muslims – attacks have indeed taken place and innocent Chinese citizens have died – the response is several orders of magnitude greater than it needs to be.
Myanmar: State-organised terror against Rohingya Muslims
The same goes for Myanmar. A few acts of terrorism carried out by members of the Rakhine state Muslim community have provided an excuse for the government to engage in what many call genocide. The Myanmar army has engaged in mass murder, mass rape and the mass destruction of an untold number of villages in the country’s northwest. As a result of this campaign of state-organised terror, close to one million Rohingya Muslims have fled their homes with most going to neighbouring Bangladesh.
The Myanmar army has engaged in mass murder, mass rape and the mass destruction of an untold number of villages in the country’s northwest.
Former human rights hero and now kinda Myanmar Prime Minister Aung San Suu Kyi is now in The Hague at the International Criminal Court trying to sell the lie that the violence in Rakhine is proportionate to what the terrorists have done (NB It is most definitely not).
It is probably easier for these two nations to do what they are doing as neither is a democracy. There is no lobby in either country to protest these human rights violations. There is no free press to hold either regime responsible. Both countries reject outside interest in these crimes, preferring to label any such effort ‘interference’ in internal affairs.
I suppose that the calculation made by leaders in these nations is that if they kill enough Muslims, terrorists or not, they will eliminate any possibility of future acts of violence. And if they kill them all there will be no one left to radicalise to violence and become a terrorist.
But what if the response to real terrorism is not only highly counterproductive but constitutes a crime against humanity?
But this ignores the fact that the scale of the unnecessary and barbaric violence meted out by the state will not be forgotten. China and Myanmar may buy some time through their actions but they will not erase the memory of their crimes.
Why not engage in counter terrorism actions that are both effective and proportionate? Would that not be a smarter idea? Not to mention more human?
