When Think-Tanks Get Terrorism Wrong: The IEP and Myanmar

By Georg Bauer 16 June 2022

“Offering new conceptual frameworks to outline peacefulness” is among the targets of the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), a (in their very own phrases) well-regarded nonprofit group with headquarters in Sydney. One in all IEP’s studies to realize this aim is its “World Terrorism Index” (GTI), “a complete examine analyzing the influence of terrorism for 163 nations”.

And, certainly, the 2021 version of the GTI, launched on the finish of April this 12 months, lived as much as the promise of providing “new conceptual frameworks”, albeit not in the best way the IEP presumably meant. In its (now redacted) dialogue and presentation of Myanmar within the GTI, the IEP offered the nation as one of many “10 nations most impacted by terrorism”, alleging a “2,071 per cent improve” in deaths “on account of terrorism” in 2021 in comparison with 2020. Armed anti-junta teams had been recognized as the primary wrongdoer. This depiction of the scenario in Myanmar is extremely questionable, problematic and even dangerous for a number of causes.

A deeply flawed report

To start with, it’s analytical nonsense. The IEP seemingly utilized a definition of terrorism to Myanmar that contradicts most typical definitions (there is no such thing as a universally agreed model as such), together with their very own: terrorism is “the systematic risk or use of violence whether or not for or in opposition to established authority, with the intention of speaking a political, non secular or ideological message to a gaggle bigger than the sufferer group, by producing worry and so altering (or trying to change) the conduct of the bigger group” (emphasis added). Importantly, the IEP excludes “acts of warfare, both irregular or typical” from falling beneath this definition.

Such a reassessment of Myanmar should embrace a take a look at the army as its conduct rather more suits the IEP’s personal terrorism definition.

Neither of those parts applies to the armed resistance in Myanmar: the resistance forces’ assaults should not meant to strike worry in most of the people (quite the opposite, there’s very robust assist for them) and their assaults are legit acts of warfare. On the very least since final September, however arguably already since early summer season 2021, the scenario in Myanmar constitutes a Non-Worldwide Armed Battle (NIAC) regulated by Worldwide Humanitarian Regulation (IHL), particularly Frequent Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, in addition to Further Protocol II. For the Ethnic Resistance Organizations (EROs) cited within the report, this has been the case for many years. In such NIACs, attacking a convoy of junta troopers is a legit assault beneath IHL. But, the IEP cites one such assault that killed 40 junta troops (however zero civilians) because the “most devastating [terrorist] assault of 2021” in Myanmar. The one conclusion we will thus draw is that the IEP utilized a unique definition of terrorism than they declare to do, one which sees non-state actors as “terrorists”, however by no means state actors, irrespective of the particular conduct and acts.

Such a definition would utterly overhaul our understanding and worldwide regulation of inside armed conflicts. IHL exists in order that (particularly civilian) struggling throughout a battle is considerably restricted by defining guidelines that each actor in a battle has to observe. If we had been to name each non-state armed actor “terrorist” no matter their precise conduct, the motivation for such teams to stick to IHL can be a lot decrease and civilians would undergo much more. Equally, state actors can be much more ruthless as they’d be seen as preventing “terrorists”. IHL would thus change into virtually out of date in NIACs. Sadly, it’s unattainable to search out out intimately how the IEP got here to its conclusions on Myanmar, because the database they use—Terrorism Tracker by danger intelligence and information firm Dragonfly—is just not publicly accessible, making the GTI very non-transparent. Earlier editions of the GTI used the World Terrorism Database (GTD), which is publicly accessible.

What’s really occurring

Moreover these basic analytical flaws, the GTI offered an unimaginable lack of information of the particular scenario in Myanmar. It talked concerning the “declaration of a state of emergency” as a substitute of a army coup; claimed that it was “political instability” following the February 2021 elections (which really came about in November 2020) that has led to violent clashes and never the army’s lethal clampdowns on peaceable protests; and known as the junta the “new army authorities” (one thing not even China has executed explicitly) whereas referring to the previous civilian authorities because the “former regime”.

The IEP thereby inadvertently took over the junta’s narrative and framing of the scenario—and that is the place the entire situation turns into much more dangerous. The individuals of Myanmar are in an open battle, a revolution in opposition to the generals and their coup. They’ve proven immense resilience and willpower on this battle and have made substantial positive factors, each politically and militarily. Nevertheless, they’ve to date obtained near zero concrete assist from different nations. Most overseas policymakers have already got a really low understanding of Myanmar. If a good establishment, just like the IEP, primarily parrots the junta’s narrative and depicts the resistance as “terrorists”, they’re even much less prone to obtain the assist they deserve and desperately want. It’s thus commendable that the IEP has redacted the part on Myanmar from the GTI after receiving criticism. Nevertheless, its response to the criticism remains to be unsatisfying. In its responses, the IEP didn’t correctly handle the problems raised in an open letter signed by over 100 Myanmar specialists. Duty is basically shifted onto the information suppliers at Terrorism Tracker, and the IEP’s “non-partisan standing” is used as an excuse to not query that information, thereby satirically ending up partisan on the junta’s facet, deliberately or not. 

The one error admitted to date is the misdating of the election; unsurprisingly, an apology to the Myanmar resistance appears out of the query for the IEP. Relatively, the IEP appears extra involved about its personal popularity and complains concerning the signatories of the open letter, claiming to be open to “constructive dialogue” whereas nonetheless not correctly addressing the problems raised. It additionally stays unclear whether or not the IEP will reassess the scenario in Myanmar, or the way it will strategy it in its subsequent GTI. Such a reassessment of Myanmar should embrace a take a look at the army as its conduct rather more suits the IEP’s personal terrorism definition. In its complete historical past, however particularly since Feb. 1, 2021, the army in Myanmar has been utilizing acts of terror. It shoots peaceable protesters, executes prisoners of battle, tortures and murders political prisoners, and burns 1000’s of civilian properties to strike worry into most of the people to interrupt its opposition and impose its personal rule and political, ideological and non secular imaginative and prescient of the nation. 

Sadly, this appears out of the query for the IEP, as they’ve made clear of their reply that “state-sponsored terror” has at all times been excluded from the GTI. This additionally exhibits a basic drawback with studies just like the GTI: quantitative information is used to systematically examine completely different components of the world and monitor developments. Nevertheless, this comes on the expense of together with case-specific features within the evaluation, resulting in gross misrepresentations. Particularly in the case of politically delicate subjects like terrorism, this may be very dangerous, as the instance at hand exhibits. We will thus solely hope that the IEP lastly apologizes to the resistance in Myanmar, correctly and transparently addresses the problems raised, and reassesses its general methodology within the GTI. In any case, “we should always absolutely all be working in direction of the identical aim round these points, and in search of to create significant change on the earth,” because the IEP put it.

Georg Bauer is a college assistant and PhD candidate within the historical past of human rights and democracy on the Division of Historical past on the College of Vienna, the place he teaches and researches nationalisms and historic narratives within the Union of Myanmar. He lived in Myanmar from 2018 to 2020, engaged on human rights points and the civil battle for the EU Delegation and later the Australian Embassy. 

This text first appeared at 9DASHLINE.com. All views expressed are these of the author and don’t essentially symbolize that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

You might also like these tales:

Resistance Fighters and KIA Conflict With Junta Forces in Northern Myanmar

Myanmar Junta Raises SIM and Web Taxes to Silence Opposition

Myanmar Junta Airstrikes Proceed in Kayah State