The Responsibility to Protect norm cluster and the challenge of atrocity prevention: an analysis of the European Union’s strategy in Myanmar
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Author | Jason Ralph,Eglantine Staunton |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066119883001 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119883001
European Journal of
International Relations
2020, Vol. 26(3) 660 –686
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354066119883001
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
The Responsibility to Protect
norm cluster and the challenge
of atrocity prevention: an
analysis of the European
Union’s strategy in Myanmar
Eglantine Staunton
Australian National University, Australia
Jason Ralph
University of Leeds, UK; University of Queensland, Australia
Abstract
This article investigates the complex relationship between atrocity prevention and
other related – yet distinct – norms of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm cluster.
It analyses how this cluster operates to help states, and other actors, properly discharge
their responsibility. Central to the analysis is the realisation that abstractly aligned
norms can clash in practice. Based on an extensive analysis of the 67 European Union
(EU) documents and statements referring to R2P, and drawing on elite interviews with
EU diplomats, we find that atrocity prevention has been ‘grafted’ onto the EU’s other
normative commitments – including conflict resolution and democracy promotion –
without sufficient acknowledgement of the cluster’s complexity and the need to prioritise
atrocity prevention vis-à-vis these other linked norms. We ask whether this framing not
only filtered but also diluted the normative power of atrocity prevention, leading to
policies that manifestly failed to prevent the genocide that occurred in Myanmar from
2017. We find that the grafting of atrocity prevention onto related yet distinct norms
contributed to an underestimation of the threat of genocide and a misplaced faith in the
ability of democratic transition to prevent atrocity. However, we also find that factors
unrelated to the normative framing of R2P influenced the EU’s willingness and ability
to respond to atrocity crimes that occurred in the lead up to the genocide that began
Corresponding author:
Eglantine Staunton, Australian National University, Department of International Relations, Coral Bell
School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Hedley Bull Building, 130 Garran Rd, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
2601, Australia.
Email: eglantine.staunton@anu.edu.au
883001EJT0010.1177/1354066119883001European Journal of International RelationsStaunton and Ralph
research-article2019
Article
Staunton and Ralph 661
in 2017. The article contributes to our understanding of the as yet unstated normative
implication of clustering norms and the EU’s implementation of R2P.
Keywords
Responsibility to protect, norm clusters, atrocity prevention, Myanmar, European
Union, democracy promotion, conflict prevention
Introduction
Following decades of armed ethnic conflicts and military rule, the situation in Myanmar
started improving in 2011 when a ‘hybrid’ system of government began. The military
still retained key powers, but the administration also included civilians. In 2015, elec-
tions and a ceasefire agreement between the government and eight armed ethnic groups
marked progress towards a more peaceful Myanmar. However, instability remained high
in several regions such as Kachin, Shan and Rakhine State. The Rohingya, a Muslim
minority residing in Rakhine State, were considered to be stateless and had not benefited
from basic rights since the 1982 Citizenship Law did not list them as one of the 135
national ethnic groups of Myanmar. Though the nominally civilian government sought to
address communal tensions in Rakhine State (Haacke, 2016: 808–812), it was not helped
by the rise of hard-line Buddhist nationalism. In that context, the Rohingya were targeted
in several waves of atrocities by the Tatmadaw – Myanmar’s armed forces – in particular
in 2012, 2015 and 2016. While other minorities were affected, this article focuses on
their plight as victims of the 2017 ‘clearance operations’ (APHR, 2018; Human Rights
Council, 2018) which led to a humanitarian emergency involving what the United
Nations (UN) Refugee Agency estimated to be over 742,000 refugees (UNHCR, 2019).
A report published on 24 August 2018 by the independent international fact-finding
mission on Myanmar (Human Rights Council, 2018: 19) concluded that ‘the gross
human rights violations and abuses committed in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States ...
undoubtedly amount to the gravest crimes under international law’ and argued that the
perpetrators must be investigated for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
(Human Rights Council, 2018: 1). This followed what the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein (2017b; see also Guterres, 2017) had previously
described in September 2017 as a ‘textbook example of ethnic cleansing’. These findings
firmly place the Myanmar situation in the normative context created by the Responsibility
to Protect (R2P).
In 2005, UN member states accepted their collective responsibility to protect popula-
tions from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (UN
General Assembly, 2005). Yet for civil society organisations committed to strengthening
that responsibility, Myanmar had always been a cause for particular concern. The Global
Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P) and the Asia-Pacific Centre for the
Responsibility to Protect (APR2P), for instance, had long identified the vulnerability of
the Muslim population (see, for example GCR2P, 2010a, 2010b; Morada, 2012; see also
Green et al., 2015). Likewise, states and international organisations who were committed
to R2P and closely engaged with Myanmar were not blind to the second-class status of
the Muslim minority (see, for instance, the various reports of the Special Rapporteurs on
To continue reading
Request your trial