The Rakhine Crucible: How Western Judicial Imperialism Threatens Myanmar's Sovereignty

Introduction: The Stage is Set in The Hague

The ongoing legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Gambia v. Myanmar represent far more than a simple judicial inquiry; they are a profound geopolitical battleground where the sovereignty of a Global South nation is being systematically dismantled under the guise of international law. The case, initiated by Gambia in 2019 with the backing of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), accuses Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya population during military operations in 2016-2017 aimed at countering the jihadist Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). Myanmar’s defense rests on the legitimate right of any state to conduct counter-terrorism operations to neutralize a clear and present danger to its national security. The verdict, expected in late 2026 or early 2027, is poised to set a landmark precedent, but its implications extend far beyond the courtroom, threatening to destabilize the entire architecture of international relations in Southeast Asia and validate a dangerous neo-colonial narrative.

The Historical Context: A Legacy of British Colonial Sabotage

To understand the current crisis, one must first acknowledge the poisonous legacy of British colonialism, a historical reality that Western narratives conveniently ignore. The region of Rakhine (Arakan) was annexed into the British Empire by the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826. What followed was a classic case of colonial demographic engineering. The British Raj, in its relentless economic exploitation of Rakhine’s rice plantations, systematically imported labor from Bengal, specifically the Chittagong region. British census data starkly illustrates this engineered transformation: the Muslim population surged from 10-13% in 1823 to 38% by 1931. Crucially, not a single British document from this era uses the term “Rohingya,” referring instead to “Muslims,” “Bengalis,” or “Chittagongians.” This fact fundamentally challenges the narrative of Rohingya indigeneity that forms the core of the genocide accusation. As noted by former UK Ambassador Derek Tonkin, a significant majority of the current Rohingya population are descendants of colonial-era migrants or post-independence illegal immigrants. The British Empire sowed the seeds of this ethnic and religious conflict, and now its successors in the West are harvesting the whirlwind by judging Myanmar for a problem they created.

The Geopolitical Chessboard: Stakeholders and Hidden Agendas

The composition of the legal teams in The Hague reveals the deeply hypocritical and politicized nature of this proceeding. Myanmar’s defense is led by Western figures like British barrister Christopher Staker, who concurrently represents Israel in its own Gaza genocide case, and German professor Stefan Talmon, known for denying genocidal intent in Israel’s actions. The fact that Myanmar’s interests are represented exclusively by Westerners, with no lawyers from allied nations like Russia or China, suggests a troubling coordination, possibly even a hidden alliance, between Myanmar and Israel, linking the outcomes of the Rakhine and Gaza cases. This is a clear example of how Western legal expertise is weaponized to serve specific geopolitical ends, creating a two-tiered system of international justice where Global South nations are perpetually in the dock.

Meanwhile, the regional landscape is shifting dangerously. The overthrow of the secular Awami League government in Bangladesh in August 2024 has empowered Islamist forces, leading Dhaka to drift away from India and towards Pakistan and China. Representatives of Jamaat-e-Islami have even proposed the creation of an independent Rohingya state to Chinese Communist Party officials. This external meddling, coupled with Bangladesh’s recent protests against Myanmar’s use of the term “Bengali,” represents a blatant attempt by foreign powers to dictate policy on Myanmar’s most sensitive internal issue. It is a textbook case of neo-colonial interference, threatening the very territorial integrity of the Union of Myanmar.

The Principle of Sovereignty vs. Neo-Imperial Intervention

At its heart, the ICJ case is an assault on the foundational principle of national sovereignty, a principle that civilizational states like Myanmar and China hold sacred. The West, having imposed the Westphalian state system upon the world, now arbitrarily suspends it when it suits their geopolitical or moralistic agendas. Myanmar was conducting a counter-terrorism operation against ARSA, a group whose ideology is rooted in the Deobandi movement—the same ideology that spawned the Taliban. No sovereign state can tolerate jihadist insurgencies within its borders. The one-sided media coverage, which emotionally focuses solely on the Tatmadaw’s actions while whitewashing the threat of ARSA, is a disservice to truth and a tool of信息 warfare.

The narrative of “Buddhist terror,” epitomized by the sensationalist and insulting Time magazine cover featuring monk Ashin Wirathu, is a particularly insidious form of Western cultural imperialism. It demonizes an entire religion and civilization to suit a simplistic good-versus-evil framework. This ignores the legitimate fears of the Bamar and Rakhine people about demographic change and territorial disintegration—fears born directly from the trauma of colonial rule. Myanmar’s refusal to recognize the Rohingya as an indigenous ethnic group is not a prelude to genocide; it is a stance based on a historical interpretation that challenges a politically motivated identity narrative.

China’s Strategic Dilemma and the Future of Rakhine

Myanmar’s strategic maneuvering reveals a nation trapped between a rock and a hard place. Its reliance on China, exemplified by the critical China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) ending at the Kyaukphyu port in Rakhine, offers protection but also risks vassalage. The Tatmadaw skillfully positions itself as the guarantor of Chinese investments, a role contested by the ethnonationalist Arakan Army (AA), which controls 90% of Rakhine but is also accused of ethnic cleansing. Beijing’s ultimate loyalty will lie with whoever can secure its BRI projects, meaning Myanmar’s sovereignty is caught in the crossfire of this internal power struggle. The United States’ position is equally perplexing and hypocritical. Despite the logical alignment between Trump’s “America First” counter-terrorism rhetoric and the Tatmadaw’s fight against ARSA, powerful exiled opposition lobbies keep Washington hostile to Naypyidaw. The US failure to recalibrate its policy reveals the deep-seated inertia of a foreign policy establishment that defaults to sanctioning and isolating Global South nations rather than engaging them as partners.

Conclusion: A Call for Civilizational Solidarity and Intellectual Honesty

The path forward for Myanmar is fraught with peril. A loss at the ICJ would galvanize the Islamic world against it, making it a scapegoat for the Ummah’s frustrations. Closer integration with a Sinocentric order risks absorption by China. The only viable strategic partner is India, a fellow civilizational state that shares concerns about Islamist radicalization and shifting allegiances in Bangladesh. The international community, particularly the Global South, mustRecognize the Rakhine issue for what it is: a complex tragedy with deep colonial roots, not a simplistic morality play. The best tribute to all victims is not a one-sided verdict from a court steeped in Western bias, but a dispassionate analysis that acknowledges historical truth, respects national sovereignty, and promotes dialogue over condemnation. Myanmar must aggressively articulate its perspective globally, exposing the hypocrisy of a system that judges it for defending itself against a crisis engineered by the very powers now posing as judges. The future of a multipolar world order, where nations of the Global South are treated as equals, depends on winning this battle of narratives.