Peace for the Rohingyas?
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This article asks what became of the Rohingya four years after the mass displacement of 2017 and whether any prospect of peace exists for them. The author outlines who the Rohingya are, the denial of their citizenship by Myanmar and their treatment as illegal immigrants, and the escalation of 2017 in which attacks on police posts were followed by military operations that drove some seven hundred thousand people into Bangladesh amid killings, sexual violence and the destruction of villages. The international response is then reviewed, including the United Nations finding of genocidal intent, the case brought before the International Court of Justice by The Gambia, and the provisional measures ordered by that court. The article closes with the present situation: roughly six hundred thousand Rohingya remaining in Myanmar, a comparable number in the world’s largest refugee camp, no returns following the repatriation agreement, and a military coup that makes renewed escalation likely.
KEYWORDS *
Rohingya, Myanmar, Bangladesh, statelessness, genocide, International Court of Justice, Kutupalong, repatriation, citizenship, ethnic cleansing, refugee camps, military coup
INTRODUCTION
Where are the Rohingyas now? Could they find peace?
In 2017 the Rohingya, a Muslim minority in Myanmar, became victims of ethnic cleansing, so the UN. Thousands of people flee into the neighboring country Bangladesh to save their lives. They are not acknowledged as citizens from Myanmar by the government, until today. A century-old conflict in the predominantly Buddhist country had turned into an outburst of violence and led to a humanitarian crisis in the neighboring country Bangladesh. But where are the 700.000 refugees today, after 4 years? Did they find a new region to live in peace?
MAIN CORPUS
Main Content
Thank you for taking your time to focus back on a century-old conflict. Asking some people, the main impression seems to be that the conflict is over.
In 2021, in which another old conflict between the Myanmar government and another minority – the Karen people – escalated. But that is a whole other story, which we might look at later. First I would like to give a brief overview of the history of the conflict between Myanmar and the Rohingya in order to understand the background.
Who are the Rohingya?
The Rohingya are the largest Muslim group with their own language and culture in the predominantly Buddhist country. Beginning in 2017, the number was around one million in Myanmar. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described them as “one of, if not, the most discriminated people in the world”. One of Myanmar’s many ethnic minorities.Their ancestors were Arab traders who have been in the region for generations.
Myanmar denies the Rohingyas citizenship and officially refused to recognize them as people in 2014. They are seen as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Since the 70s, Rohingyas have migrated from all over the region. During the last years, they’ve always been facing violence and abuses by the security forces of Myanmar. But in 2017 the tensions escalated when Rohingya militants fought back and launched deadly attacks on more than 30 police posts from Myanmar.
700.000 people fled from military troops, backed by local Buddhist mobs, into Bangladesh. Villages were burned, women and girls raped and abused and civilians killed, so Amnesty International and Médicines Sans Frontières. At least 6700 people, including over 700 children under the age of 5 were killed after the violent escalation. At the same time, the government puts the number of dead at 400 and many villages were destroyed after September 2017, when Myanmar’s leader, Aung San Suu Kyi said, security forces operations had ended.
What is the international response?
Myanmar’s military got accused of carrying out mass killings and rapes with “genocidal intent” by the UN in August 2018. The case was brought to the International Court of Justice by a small Muslim minority of Gambia in 2019. On behalf of dozens of other Muslim countries, they called for emergency measures to be taken against the Myanmar military. The Nobel prize laureate and state counselor of Myanmar Aung San Duu Kyi rejected allegations of genocide when she appeared at the court in December 2019.
The court called the 600.000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar “extremely vulnerable” to military violence. The court ordered the country to report regularly to the tribunal about its progress – a sharp offensive against Aung San Suu Kyi, who asked the court to drop the genocide case. Aung San Suu Kyi spent over a decade fighting against the Burmese military that she is now defending. Reed Brody, counsel and spokesperson for Human Rights Watch: “This is the most important court in the world intervening in one of the worst mass atrocity situations of our time while the atrocities are still happening. It doesn’t really get more significant than that.” 600.000 Rohingya are remaining in Myanmar under inhuman circumstances with a “serious risk that genocidal actions may occur and recur”, so UN investigators.
What about the 700.000 refugees from 2017? Where are they today?
The refugees in 2017 had joined thousands of Rohingya who had fled Myanmar in previous years already. Kutupalong, the largest refugee camp in the world, has more than 600.000 refugees alone. In March 2019 Bangladesh announced a restriction to let Rohingya cross the border. After an agreement for the return of refugees in early 2018, none returned. They didn’t want to go back unless they were given citizenship.
SUMMARY *
The article’s central observation is one of attention rather than fact: the situation it describes has not improved, and it has ceased to be reported. Four years after the displacement, roughly the same number of people remain in Myanmar without citizenship and a comparable number remain in Bangladesh without status, a repatriation agreement has produced no returns because the condition the refugees set has not been met, and the host country has reached the limit of what it is willing to absorb. The military coup of February 2021 removed whatever civilian restraint existed on the institution responsible for the events of 2017.
CONCLUSION
From the media point of view, the Rohingya crisis is no longer making headlines. With over 600.000 Rohingyas in Myanmar and over 700.000 in Bangladesh.
Did they find peace?
Not really. Bangladesh refused to take more refugees because they are still working on reaching their own Millenium Development Goals. The developing country barely has capacities for all these refugees. The biggest refugee camp all over the world is at its limit. And it is just a matter of time, until when the situation in Myanmar escalates again after the military coup in February. 1.3 Million stateless people without a perspective of their future and the future of their families are living at an existential minimum with limited access to food, water, and health care while communicable diseases are widely spreading. A genocide is happening right before our eyes, yet many governments still remain silent. The Myanmar government must stop this persecution. Are we really going to let 2017 repeat?
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The obstacle at the centre of this situation is stated plainly in the article and deserves to be treated as the starting point rather than as a detail: the refugees will not return without citizenship, and Myanmar will not grant it. Everything else follows. A repatriation agreement that does not address status is an agreement to move people from one condition of statelessness to another, which is why none of the returns arranged in 2018 took place. Any credible process must begin with the legal framework that excluded them, principally the citizenship law of 1982, rather than with logistics.
That is a long term prospect and it should not become an argument for doing nothing meanwhile. Two things are achievable in the interval. The first is the position of those in Bangladesh, where the framing of their presence as temporary has led to restrictions on education, work and movement that produce a generation without schooling or skills. Formal education in their own language and in the curriculum of their country of origin, and lawful access to work in defined sectors, prepare people for return rather than obstructing it, and the costs to the host state can be met internationally. Bangladesh has carried this burden with limited support, and responsibility sharing, through funding and through resettlement places in third countries, is the practical form that solidarity takes.
The second is the position of those who remain in Myanmar, whose situation attracts less attention than that of the displaced and is in some respects worse. Freedom of movement, access to health care and education, and the removal of the restrictions confining people to camps within Rakhine State are matters on which international engagement can be directed now, and they are the measures that would most reduce the risk of the recurrence the article fears.
On accountability, the article is right that the proceedings before the International Court of Justice matter, and it is worth being clear about what they can and cannot do. That court determines state responsibility rather than individual guilt; the provisional measures it ordered are binding but unenforced; and the process will take years. Alongside it, the mechanism established by the Human Rights Council continues to collect evidence for future prosecutions, and cases have been brought in national courts under universal jurisdiction. None of this stops what is happening. All of it ensures that a record exists, which is what makes a reckoning possible whenever the political conditions allow one.
Finally, a word about the article’s own contribution. It is written to counter the fading of attention, and that is a legitimate purpose for a journal such as this. Sustained international attention is not a substitute for policy, but its absence removes the pressure on which every other measure depends, and in a situation where the affected population has no voice in any forum that matters, the willingness of others to keep describing their circumstances is not a small thing.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
References:
“Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar” https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/rohingya-crisis-myanmar
“Myanmar Rohingya: What you need to know about the crisis” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561 Published January 2020
“International Court of Justice Orders Burmese Authorities to Protect Rohingya Muslims from Genocide” https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/27/international-court-justice-orders-burmese-authorities-protect-rohingya-muslims Published in January 2020
“Three years later: Rohingyas Muslims continue to face persecution and are torn apart from their homes” https://thegatewayonline.ca/2021/04/three-years-later-rohingya-muslims-continue-to-face-persecution-and-are-torn-apart-from-their-homes/ Published in April 2021
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order on Provisional Measures, 23 January 2020.
Report of the Independent International Fact Finding Mission on Myanmar, United Nations Human Rights Council, A/HRC/39/64, 2018.
Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, established by Human Rights Council Resolution 39/2 (2018).
Burma Citizenship Law, 1982, and the revocation of temporary registration cards in 2015.
Memorandum of Understanding between Myanmar and Bangladesh on repatriation, 23 November 2017, and the tripartite arrangement with UNHCR, 2018.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and partners, Joint Response Plan for the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis, annual editions, Cox’s Bazar.
Advisory Commission on Rakhine State (2017). Towards a Peaceful, Fair and Prosperous Future for the People of Rakhine, final report, chaired by Kofi Annan.
Is there a realistic chance for Yemen to come to peace?
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This article surveys the war in Yemen and the attempts made to end it. The author traces the conflict from the fall of President Saleh during the Arab Spring, through the Houthi advance on Sanaa in 2014 and the Saudi led intervention of 2015, to the involvement of external powers and the proliferation of armed actors. Particular attention is given to the humanitarian consequences, including the obstruction of aid by several parties, the spread of cholera and COVID 19, and the population’s dependence on assistance. The peace process is then reviewed through the Security Council sanctions regime and its Panel of Experts, the Stockholm Agreement of 2018 with its ceasefire and prisoner exchanges, and the Riyadh Agreement of 2019 between the government and southern separatists. The author concludes that despite repeated attempts, negotiations remain unconcluded and warns of renewed escalation. The characterisations reflect the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral.
KEYWORDS *
Yemen, humanitarian crisis, Houthis, Saudi led coalition, Stockholm Agreement, Riyadh Agreement, Security Council sanctions, proxy conflict, ceasefire, aid obstruction, famine, arms transfers
INTRODUCTION
The worst humanitarian crisis – that is saying something in a world with all sorts of problems. Yemen didn’t have it easy in the last decades and it has gotten worse since 2015 when the government changed violently. Several agreements, UN sanctions, and dialogues happened during the last 5 years. Steps forward, step backward. A complex game about power, territory, and convictions. Is there a realistic chance to finally come to peace?
MAIN CORPUS
Thank you for sharing your time as I’m about to give an overview of the conflict itself and the attempts to achieve peace. One cannot find reports in the main headlines for long. The focus of the media lies somewhere else. I believe, raising awareness about an issue takes a major part in the peace process. Conflicts need to be seen in order to be solved! First I would like to introduce the major players briefly in order to understand the background of the conflict. It all started when former president Saleh, who reigned the country from 1990 until 2012, got turned down during the Arab spring. His rule ended due to a perceived lack of democracy, high-level corruption, and abuses of human rights. Vice president Hadi took over and the Gulf Cooperation Council forced Saleh out and helped to install the new government.
The Houthis, a Shia Muslim minority from Northern Yemen, who were very much involved in the uprising against former president Saleh, felt suppressed by the new government. The Shia insurgency, supported by Iran, escalated in 2014 when the Houthis took over the capital Sanaa. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia and the Saudi-led intervention created three main goals: Restoration of Hadi’s government, protection of their own Southern borders, and limitation of a growing influence of Iran. Yemen is actually seen as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Logistical and military support by the US, Germany, France, and the UK is still an issue. Additionally, armed groups like the Houthis, secessionists from the South, Al Qaeda, and ISIS merge within the conflict. The UN stated that they could all be liable for atrocities in Yemen after the war is over. Not just fighting causes suffering. Additionally, Aid is being used.
In 2015 the Saudi-led coalition created land, sea, and air barriers which made supplies impossible to get in. Houthis are blocking, destroying, and taking aid, which Yemenis desperately need. Cholera is spreading rapidly due to limited access to clean water and doctors are facing a severe shortage of drugs, while COVID-19 spreads uncontrolled. 80% of Yemeni’s people depend on humanitarian aid. 24 million people and nearly every Yemeni child out of a population of in total 29 Million. As with any war, experts say, diplomacy will be the only way to put an end to the nightmare in Yemen. (1)
So let’s have a look at the peace process so far: The 2014 resolution by the UN Security Council got extended in February 2020. It contains financial freezes, travel bans, and a political transition. The UN supports the Yemeni government to stabilize security and put forward political reforms. Additionally, the World Bank and the IMF support the Government on economic reforms. (2) The situation in Yemen needs to be under continuous review by the Panel of Experts who analyzes information regarding the implementation of these sanctions. (3)
UN representative of Yemen, Abdullah al Saadi, expressed hope that the conclusions of the Panel of Experts will help to end the humanitarian tragedy. Violating the international law, he said, the Houthis militia committed aggression against women, including arrest and rape. He also condemned the militias sending children to the front lines. He thanks the Panel for bringing those actions to light. Houthis should also be held to account for the Safer’s rupture. A rusting oil tanker with more than a million barrels of oil that hadn’t had maintenance in 5 years. Experts cannot have access yet to prevent an environmental incident. Another big stepstone on the path to achieving peace was in 2018.
The Stockholm agreement: A cease-fire took place and 150000 Yemeni returned to their homes. The parties have established a Joint Operation Center and it was noticed a significant reduction of violence. Prisoners were exchanged and released and trust was built. (4) An essential step for successful peacebuilding. UN Special Envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, said that the cooperation sent a “massive signal” that positive change is possible. (5)
In 2019 another peace deal between the Yemeni government and southern separatists was signed in Riyadh, Saudi’s capital. An attempt by Saudi Arabia to restore order in the coalition and focus again on defeating the Houthis. Key features were an equally distributed formation of a new technocratic government between northerners and southerners, a replacement of military forces to their initial positions, and a new defense force to protect civilian infrastructure. (6)
SUMMARY *
The article’s chronology shows a pattern rather than a sequence of isolated failures. Each agreement addressed one dimension of the conflict while leaving the others untouched: Stockholm covered the port of Hodeidah and prisoner exchanges but not the wider war; Riyadh settled a dispute within one coalition without engaging the principal adversary. Each was concluded between the parties present and was undermined by those absent. And in each case implementation depended on goodwill rather than on verification, so that provisions agreed in a conference hall were not observed on the ground. Against this record the humanitarian situation deteriorated continuously, driven by obstruction attributed to several parties, by economic collapse and by disease.
CONCLUSION
The timeline of the Yemen war shows several attempts to achieve peace. So why is the country still at war? Why is it still the worst humanitarian crisis on this planet? A UN press report from July stated that the crisis has never been worse. Unrelenting violence, uncontrolled spread of COVID-19, and a collapsing economy bring Yemen again to the edge. (7) Griffiths said that the Houthis did not yet agree on the test of a joint declaration to outline a nationwide ceasefire. Both parties gave back various proposals over the last four months. Griffiths encouraged them to conclude negotiations before the opportunity closes.
“There is a real risk that these negotiations will slip away and that Yemen will enter a new phase of prolonged escalations”, Griffith said. With adequate funding, humanitarian agencies could address the most immediate needs and prevent another slide towards famine. Countries must be pressured to stop their logistical and military support and replace these with adequate funding. The council must push parties to engage in peace talk and pressure them to cease their military operations.
“Help Yemen now, or watch the country fall into the abyss!” Griffith warned.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The article asks why a war with so many agreements remains a war, and its own chronology contains the answer. Every settlement listed was partial: partial in the parties it included, partial in the subjects it covered, and partial in the means available to verify it. That is not an argument against negotiated settlements; it is a description of what has to be corrected.
Inclusion is the first correction. A framework negotiated between the Saudi led coalition and the Houthis, with a government delegation attached, leaves out the southern separatists, the Tihama and Taiz forces, the tribal authorities who actually control much of the country, and the women’s and civil society groups whose acceptance any settlement will eventually require. Agreements reached without them are agreements they have every reason to break. Structured inclusion of a wider set of actors slows the process and is the only thing that makes its outcome durable.
Verification is the second. Stockholm demonstrated both what is achievable and what is missing: a ceasefire and prisoner exchange were agreed and produced real results, while redeployment from Hodeidah largely did not occur because no mechanism could establish who had moved and no consequence attached to remaining. Monitoring with genuine access, published reporting and defined responses to violation is what converts a signed text into an observed one, and it is comparatively cheap.
The economy deserves more attention than it usually receives, because in Yemen it is a weapon rather than a backdrop. Import restrictions, the currency split between two central banks, unpaid public salaries and the control of port and customs revenue determine whether ordinary people eat. These questions are technical, less politically charged than territory or government formation, and therefore among the most negotiable items available. Agreement on the payment of salaries and the unimpeded entry of food, fuel and medicine would save more lives in the short term than any political breakthrough, and it can be pursued in parallel.
Two further matters follow from the article’s own material. External arms supply is one of the few points of genuine leverage, since suppliers of both sides retain influence they rarely exercise; conditioning transfers on compliance with humanitarian obligations and on engagement in the process would change calculations that exhortation does not reach. And accountability should be preserved rather than traded, given that the record cited here attributes serious violations to multiple parties. Documentation and the maintenance of investigative mechanisms do not obstruct a settlement; a settlement that quietly extinguishes them creates the grievance from which the next war grows.
Finally, the Safer tanker mentioned in passing is worth treating as more than an aside. A vessel holding over a million barrels of oil, without maintenance for years, in a conflict zone where inspection has been repeatedly refused, threatens the Red Sea, the fisheries on which coastal communities depend and the very ports through which aid arrives. It is also the rare issue on which the interests of every party align, which makes it exactly the kind of file on which a mediator can build. Technical cooperation on a shared danger has opened political channels in other conflicts, and it costs nothing to try.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
- “Why is Yemen at war? | Start Here – YouTube.” . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJzSwOQMPrI. Published November 2019
- “Security Council Extends 2014 Sanctions Imposed on Those ….”. https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sc14121.doc.htm. Published February 2020
- “Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution ….”. https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/2140. Published 2014
- “Stockholm Agreement – OSESGY.” https://osesgy.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/stockholm_agreement_-.pdf.
- “Yemen: Committee brings warring parties to the … – UN News.” https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/12/1029501. Published December 2018
- “Yemen’s Riyadh Agreement: An overview | Saudi … – Al Jazeera.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/7/29/yemens-riyadh-agreement-an-overview Published July 2020
- “Amid Unrelenting Violence, Spread of COVID-19, Crisis in ….” Published July 2020. https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sc14266.doc.htm.
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2140 (2014), 2201 (2015), 2216 (2015) and 2451 (2018).
Stockholm Agreement, 13 December 2018, including the Hodeidah Agreement, the prisoner exchange agreement and the statement of understanding on Taiz.
Riyadh Agreement between the Government of Yemen and the Southern Transitional Council, 5 November 2019.
Report of the Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen, United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Yemen Humanitarian Needs Overview, annual editions.
United Nations Development Programme and partners, documentation on the FSO Safer salvage operation, Sanaa and New York.
International Crisis Group, Middle East reports on Yemen, Brussels.
We are all on our own path
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This reflective essay considers what nature teaches about human individuality and what this means for mediation practice. Drawing on personal experience and on observation of plants and horses, the author argues that human beings share the same biological principle and the same striving for inner peace, while differing greatly in development according to circumstances, history and life experience. The pandemic serves as an illustration: the same event is experienced by one person as an opportunity for reflection and by another as a source of anxiety or danger. From this the author concludes that reactions which appear incomprehensible deserve to be taken seriously, that no single method of personal development suits everyone, and that deep listening, critical thinking and wise speaking are the basis for understanding others and creating a trustworthy space.
KEYWORDS *
Mindful mediation, individuality, nature, empathy, deep listening, self reflection, personal development, non judgment, readiness for change, pandemic, trust
INTRODUCTION
Nature has always served us, humans, as great teachers. It can help us to develop personally. How else? We are part of nature. Whether in bionics (technologies adapted from nature), astrological navigation, or philosophical questions about life. Already Leonardo da Vinci observed birds flying until he was convinced that he could build a flying object by himself. Likewise, numerous spiritual and philosophical teachers, such as Siddharta Gautama, have seen truth and insights while spending long periods of time in nature far away from civilization. There are countless examples in the history of humanity. We still learn a lot from nature today. Even though we might not always be aware.
Growing up with my horse, caring for newborns and their mothers as a nurse, hiking in the Himalayas, or spending weekends in the hot springs by the river in northern Thailand have certainly had a more lasting effect on my evolving than most school lessons.
“Nature is a single unit as conceived but is dissimilar in its various manifestations. It is the principal model from which every conscious being can draw examples in order to elevate their own free and independent personality.”
MAIN CORPUS
We are all equal in our general functioning and strive for the same inner peace. However, the development of each individual can vary greatly depending on history and life experiences. Even though we have evolved, we are and remain part of nature, part of the natural ecosystem. Even though our instincts and intuition have been replaced by new technologies over the last century, we remain living beings like our ancestors. We are biological organisms that function according to certain physiological, psychological, and biochemical processes.
In general, the development of an individual from its creation to death follows the same principle. In individual cases, however, there can be remarkable differences due to various factors. While observing nature around us, obvious parallels between humans and our ecosystem can be seen. In every plant and every other living organism, there are individual differences, depending on the external conditions of life. Thus, a plant sprout grows, flowers, and reproduces in the same way as any other of its specimens. However, depending on circumstances such as crossing, location, weather conditions, and pollination by insects, the result in the form of fruits can be very healthy and full-bodied or ill and very weak.
This is also the case with a herd of horses, for example. The origin, birth, and growing up follow the same biological principle. As well as illness and death. But individually in each case, each horse can differ greatly. One is stronger, tougher, and may even dominate the whole herd after the hierarchy has been fought for. Another may be much weaker and therefore might even lose fights for food and fall ill. In between, there are again several greyscales and deviations.
So we humans are equal at the core of our being. We should not differ by politics, religion, or culture. At least this is the ideal conception, which unfortunately does not correspond to reality in many parts of the world. At the same time, however, we can be very different and individual case by case. In addition, our ability to think and remember differs significantly compared to animals. Because of the cerebral cortex with a higher number of nerve cells and more surface area due to increased folds and furrows, humans are able to recognize causal connections and act according to ethical-moral principles. Self-reflection, anticipation, and self-determination distinguish humans from their related primates. Depending on the conflicts, problems, and dramas to which we have been exposed, challenges in everyday life can be perceived quite differently.
For some people, the corona pandemic, for example, is a chance to reflect on their own lives, to learn new skills for which there is otherwise no time, or even simply to spend more time with their family and themselves. For others, this time can mean a lot of anxiety and sorrows in regard to financial problems or health issues. Or perhaps emotionally if someone has to find a way in an unhealthy, violent relationship for weeks in lockdown. I’m sure we all could imagine more and more examples here.
There are certainly studies about the psychological and physical influences that a pandemic like this has on a person. In the individual, however, this can vary greatly. Depending on how we are emotionally, physically, and mentally positioned. Which living conditions and which resources we have. And how we thereby reflect ourselves and further develop as emancipated beings.
SUMMARY *
The essay’s argument rests on a single distinction. At the level of biological principle, human beings are alike: the same course of growth, the same needs, the same striving for peace. At the level of individual development, the differences are decisive, because circumstances, history and experience shape each person differently, exactly as they do a plant or an animal within its own species. From this the author draws a practical consequence for anyone working with people in conflict: a reaction that seems disproportionate is intelligible once one knows what shaped it, and since that knowledge is rarely available, suspending judgment is the more reliable stance.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we respond differently to life events, challenges, and things that are said, heard, or done, even though we are generally the same as humans. The reaction of another person may not always be understandable. But it should be taken seriously and it should be accepted. You can never know exactly what has shaped a person in their past and why they have become the person they are today.
I believe that we are all on our own path. That we can learn from every event and that we can give meaning to even the darkest times in our lives. Because only in this way we can grow and develop. Life is full of challenges that shape us and make us the person we are today. You might know the saying, that “Getting lost is never a waste of time.”
When dealing with other people, we should always keep in mind that we all have a different life story and therefore may not be able to judge the actions of an individual. So it may be that a certain method helps me to develop personally or to deal with emotional wounds, but exactly the same method can have no particular effect on another person. We are all at different points.
Even though a conscious and healthy lifestyle with a balanced diet, proper sleep, sports, meditation, and social life, in general, is beneficial to the mental, physical and spiritual health of everyone, the respective expression of these things may vary in individual cases. One person regularly goes to the gym, the next has discovered yoga for himself or herself, and the next to find balance in dancing, jogging, or swimming. Also in nutrition or other things. We all know numerous views on which diet is “the right one” or which method of meditation is most effective. The opinions differ widely think in the end everybody has to find out for oneself and stay open to new things. You cannot tell anyone else the right way for him or her. As long as you don’t hurt yourself or others, everything is fine.
A change can only come from yourself and only you know deep inside yourself what is right for you. Unsolicited advice usually meets with contradiction. Only when someone opens himself and wants to learn from the experiences of others, there is a basis for a lasting change. As an old Buddhist saying says: “When the student is ready, the teacher comes automatically.”
‘Deep listening, critical thinking and wise speaking’1 enables us to understand other people’s problems and to respect their individuality. This is the only way to create a good basis for solving problems sustainably and enabling a trustworthy space. We should always maintain our empathy and not forget that we all have our ups and downs. We all encounter life’s lessons and challenges again and again. Every single one of us!
And we are all on our own path.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The essay states a principle that mediators endorse readily in the abstract and abandon quickly under pressure: that a person’s reaction makes sense from where they stand, even when it appears disproportionate from where we stand. Translating that principle into practice is a matter of specific habits rather than good intentions.
The most useful of these concerns the moment of surprise. When a party responds to something small with an intensity that seems out of proportion, that response is information rather than obstruction: it indicates that the small thing has touched something larger. The disciplined move is to become curious rather than to manage the reaction away, and the question that opens it is simple. What does this mean to you, or what does this remind you of, will often reveal in a sentence what an hour of argument about the substantive issue would not.
The essay’s insistence that no method suits everyone applies with equal force to mediation itself. Practitioners develop a preferred approach, and it works, and they begin to apply it to everyone. Some parties need to tell the whole story before they can consider any option; others find the story unbearable and want to negotiate immediately. Some need silence to think; others experience silence as pressure. Reading which kind of person is in the room, and adapting accordingly, is a large part of what distinguishes an experienced mediator from a well trained one.
Two qualifications belong alongside this generous view, and they matter precisely because the essay is written from a position of goodwill. Understanding why someone acts as they do is not the same as accepting what they do; a mediator can hold both, comprehending the history behind a party’s conduct while being entirely clear that certain conduct must stop. And where the essay writes that everything is fine as long as no one is hurt, the practitioner’s difficulty is that harm is often exactly what is at issue, sometimes invisibly, as in the situation the author herself names, of someone confined with a violent partner. Non judgment about how people live is a virtue; non judgment about harm is not, and knowing where that line falls is among the more demanding parts of this work.
Finally, the essay’s opening image deserves to be taken more literally than it may have been intended. Practitioners in this field carry other people’s distress, and the resources it names, time outdoors, physical activity, rest, relationships, are not decoration but the means by which the capacity to listen is renewed. A mediator without those resources listens less well, judges more quickly, and is more likely to want the session to end. The care the author commends toward others begins, unavoidably, with the same care directed inward.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
References:
Erdmann, Daniel – World Mediation Organization Training Content 2020 – www.worldmediation.org
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (unconditional positive regard and empathic understanding).
Rosenberg, M. B. (2015). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life (3rd edition). PuddleDancer Press, Encinitas.
Kabat Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. Hyperion, New York.
Bowling, D., & Hoffman, D. (Eds.) (2003). Bringing Peace into the Room: How the Personal Qualities of the Mediator Impact the Process of Conflict Resolution. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages of Change in the Modification of Problem Behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390 to 395.
Bratman, G. N. et al. (2019). Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective. Science Advances, 5(7).
World Health Organization (2020). Mental Health and Psychosocial Considerations During the COVID 19 Outbreak, Geneva.
Would a higher instance be able to arbitrate the conflict in the East China Sea?
How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
ABSTRACT *
This article traces the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu and Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and shows how a bilateral territorial question has widened into a regional and international one. The author follows the historical sequence from the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 through the wartime declarations that left the status of the islands unresolved, the United Nations report of 1969 indicating oil and gas deposits, the joint development agreement of 2008 and its subsequent collapse, the purchase of the islands in 2012 and the protests that followed, and the growing involvement of the United States, the Philippines and other states in the region. The article closes with a series of open questions about whether an international legal or institutional mechanism could resolve disputes of this kind.
KEYWORDS *
East China Sea, Diaoyu Senkaku Islands, China, Japan, territorial dispute, natural resources, UNCLOS, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, joint development, exclusive economic zone, South China Sea, escalation
INTRODUCTION
A centuries-old conflict between China and Japan about the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands seems to come to a head over the past few years. A conflict over territory and resources between two nations expands on a global scale and involves more and more parties.
The conflict in the East China Sea between Japan and China goes back more than 100 years. Basically, both nations claim rights about an area in the sea, which contains natural gas and oil fields. But as global conflicts are by nature, it is way more complex.
Throughout history, different countries were included in the dispute through territorial claims in order to gain power within that region, which has lots of natural gas and oil resources as well as includes the main trading passes. In the following, I will present the historical events briefly to give an overview of the conflict.
MAIN CORPUS
In 1895 the Sino-Japanese war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, in which China cedes territories to Japan. The Treaty didn’t specifically mention the islands mentioned above.
After the 2nd World War Japan had to give back all claims seized through war, which was stated within the declaration of Kairo in 1943 and the declaration of Potsdam in 1945. As it was not mentioned within the Treaty, to which country the two disputed islands belonged before, the affiliation is still not solved up to today. It got even tenser after a UN report stated in 1969 that there is a high probability of oil and gas resources in the disputed area.
China started to claim rights over the islands and the US intervened on Japan’s side, because of a US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty from 1960. The US took a neutral position in the whole conflict in order to normalize relations with China which hopes to end the Vietnam war. But they still played a role in the background by supporting ASEAN countries and Japan in order to hold their own stability within that region.
After years of several smaller military and civil incidents over the gas field, Japan and China finally signed a Joint Energy Development Agreement in 2008. It says that both countries agreed on exploring the fields jointly, which was a major step towards cooperation on the energy the resources.
Closely to a peaceful solution, in 2009 China began to build a rig unilaterally. Japan threatened to bring China to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the tensions arose again. Since the agreement was made little has been done to increase resource developments jointly.
On the contrary, over the last decade, the situation has become even tenser. The US took a greater part in it, the Philippines and other ASEAN countries got involved as well. Through the neighboring conflict in the South China Sea, it seemed nearly inevitable not to expand the heat from this dispute in the whole area.
After Japan purchased the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands from a private owner in 2012 in order to protect their sovereignty, the largest Anti-Japanese protests happened in China since the 70s. The economy between China and Japan dropped immensely and both countries increased their military budgets again.
Soon Japan offered military aid for the conflict in the South China Sea towards the Philippines and China declared an Air Defense Identification Zone which requires all non-commercial air traffic to submit their flight plans prior to entering that area. If not, immediate military action would be performed.
After, the US signed a ten-year military pact with the Philippines in 2014, which is in conflict with China as well because of some other disputed islands, called the Spratly Islands.
In 2016 China snatched and later on returned a US Navy underwater drone. In 2018 the tensions increased even more after a Chinese and a US warship nearly collided. The US secretary canceled his trip to Beijing and Trump said, President Xi Jinping may not be a friend anymore.
SUMMARY
Since January 2019 more than 200 Chinese ships were seen near the island of the Philippines. What started to be a territorial conflict between two nations at the end of the 19th century is nowadays a global dispute about resources and trading passes in the Pacific. The conflict includes decisions from past wars like the 2nd World War and the Vietnam War and involves the current conflict in the South China Sea. It includes old and new Treaties and it includes way more interests than only from China and Japan.
CONCLUSION
As the border of the East China Sea and the South China Sea are close might there be a possibility of a conflict that spreads even further?
Or will there be an opportunity to find a solution? Would both conflict partners sit together and open up towards a possibility to solve the conflict? And which higher global authority could support the parties in solving the conflict? What could be the function of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS in this conflict?
Wouldn’t there be a possibility to fix by law, which regions belong to which country if the official 200 nautical miles from each coast is overlapping?
After so many countless years of experiences with conflicts about territories in human history, shouldn’t there be an official global institution that would have the function to solve a conflict like this?
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The article’s closing questions have concrete answers, and they are more discouraging and more useful than they first appear.
An institution of the kind the author asks for already exists. The Law of the Sea Convention establishes rules for overlapping exclusive economic zones and provides three fora, the International Tribunal, the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals, for resolving the resulting disputes. Its limitation is structural: the Convention governs maritime zones generated by territory, not sovereignty over territory itself, so it cannot decide who owns the islands, only what maritime entitlements follow once that is settled. Both parties have also excluded sovereignty and boundary disputes from compulsory jurisdiction, as most coastal states have, which means neither can be brought before a tribunal without its consent. The 2016 arbitration concerning the South China Sea illustrates the further difficulty precisely: an award was issued, and the state that lost declined to accept it. Adjudication produces authoritative answers, but only enforceable ones where the parties want them.
That points toward the instrument this dispute has already used and abandoned. The joint development agreement of 2008 was the right structure for exactly the reason the article records: it allowed both parties to extract value from the seabed without either conceding sovereignty. Such arrangements have succeeded elsewhere, in the Timor Sea, the Gulf of Thailand and the North Sea, and they work because they separate what is negotiable, revenue and access, from what is not, title. What defeated the Chinese and Japanese agreement was the absence of implementation machinery: no joint authority with defined powers, no agreed monitoring, no dispute procedure for the moment when one side acted alone. Reviving it with those components, and with an explicit clause that nothing done under it prejudices either sovereignty claim, is the most realistic route available.
Meanwhile the immediate risk is not litigation but collision. Fishing vessels, coast guards, warships and aircraft operate in close proximity around these features, and the incidents the article lists show how close the margin is. Crisis management arrangements are unglamorous and achievable: a maritime and air hotline that functions in real time, agreed protocols for encounters, notification of exercises, and joint fisheries and search and rescue cooperation. Such measures require no concession on the underlying claim and address the way this dispute is most likely to turn violent, which is by accident rather than by decision.
Two final observations. The domestic dimension deserves attention, because in both countries this issue mobilises nationalist sentiment that constrains leaders more than it directs them; agreements are therefore best negotiated quietly and announced as achievements rather than concessions, and joint historical and educational work, though slow, reduces the political cost of compromise over time. And the wider regional framework matters: a code of conduct binding all claimants in these waters, including the South China Sea parties the article mentions, would address what the author identifies as the real danger, namely that separate disputes merge into a single confrontation in which every incident anywhere raises the temperature everywhere.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/tensions-east-china-sea
https://www.cfr.org/interactives/chinas-maritime-disputes?cid=otr-marketing_use-china_sea_InfoGuide#!/chinas-maritime-disputes?cid=otr-marketing_use-china_sea_InfoGuide
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Parts V, VI and XV.
Treaty of Shimonoseki, 1895; Cairo Declaration, 1943; Potsdam Declaration, 1945; Treaty of San Francisco, 1951; Okinawa Reversion Agreement, 1971.
Agreement between Japan and China on the Joint Development of the East China Sea, 18 June 2008.
Permanent Court of Arbitration, The South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China), Award of 12 July 2016.
Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, ASEAN and China, 2002, and negotiations on a Code of Conduct.
Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States, 1960.
Emmers, R. (2010). Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia. Routledge, London.