Evidence suggests that a prominent ethnic armed group may have been responsible for a massacre of Rohingya civilians near Myanmar’s border with Bangladesh recently.
Reports on August 5 indicated that many Rohingya civilians were killed along the border between Bangladesh and Myanmar’s Rakhine State as they tried to escape to safety in Bangladesh. Initially, it was hard to determine responsibility, with civilian eyewitnesses pointing fingers at the Arakan Army (AA), an ethnic Rakhine nationalist group seeking an independent Rakhine polity in western Myanmar.
Despite the AA denying involvement and blaming the military for the massacre, a new report by Fortify Rights makes a strong case that the AA was indeed behind the attack on August 5. The report also accuses AA soldiers of killing Rohingya civilians on August 6 as AA forces closed in on Maungdaw Township.
Based on interviews with Rohingya eyewitnesses and open-source evidence of the massacre, the report details how Rohingya civilians gathered at the Naf River on August 5, fleeing an AA offensive on Maungdaw. They were attacked by AA drones and mortars, resulting in the deaths of many women, children, and men.
The report further discredits claims by the United League of Arakan (ULA), the AA’s political wing, denying responsibility for the attack. It also highlights the strained sectarian relations in Rakhine State due to actions by both the Myanmar military and ethnic armed groups like the AA.
While the Myanmar military bears much responsibility for the Rohingya crisis, the AA’s attacks on civilians are concerning, leading Fortify Rights to call for investigations by the International Criminal Court. The National Unity Government (NUG), leading the resistance against the military junta, has been cautious in addressing the AA’s actions, considering its role in the coalition.
As Myanmar navigates its post-revolution future, the effectiveness of powerful ethnic armed groups like the AA raises questions about the democratic principles they uphold. Dependence on militant groups with ambiguous attitudes toward democracy may complicate the country’s path to a stable post-revolutionary state.