Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

At top UN court, Myanmar denies deadly Rohingya campaign amounts to genocide

News

At top UN court, Myanmar denies deadly Rohingya campaign amounts to genocide
News

News

At top UN court, Myanmar denies deadly Rohingya campaign amounts to genocide

2026-01-16 18:28 Last Updated At:18:30

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Myanmar insisted Friday that its deadly military campaign against the Rohingya ethnic minority was a legitimate counter-terrorism operation and did not amount to genocide, as it defended itself at the top United Nations court against an allegation of breaching the genocide convention.

Myanmar launched the campaign in Rakhine state in 2017 after an attack by a Rohingya insurgent group. Security forces were accused of mass rapes, killings and torching thousands of homes as more than 700,000 Rohingya fled into neighboring Bangladesh.

“Myanmar was not obliged to remain idle and allow terrorists to have free reign of northern Rakhine state,” the country’s representative Ko Ko Hlaing told black-robed judges at the International Court of Justice.

African nation Gambia brought a case at the court in 2019 alleging that Myanmar's military actions amount to a breach of the Genocide Convention that was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust.

Some 1.2 million members of the Rohingya minority are still languishing in chaotic, overcrowded camps in Bangladesh, where armed groups recruit children and girls as young as 12 are forced into prostitution. The sudden and severe foreign aid cuts imposed last year by U.S. President Donald Trump shuttered thousands of the camps’ schools and have caused children to starve to death.

Buddhist-majority Myanmar has long considered the Rohingya Muslim minority to be “Bengalis” from Bangladesh even though their families have lived in the country for generations. Nearly all have been denied citizenship since 1982.

As hearings opened Monday, Gambian Justice Minister Dawda Jallow said his nation filed the case after the Rohingya “endured decades of appalling persecution, and years of dehumanizing propaganda. This culminated in the savage, genocidal ‘clearance operations’ of 2016 and 2017, which were followed by continued genocidal policies meant to erase their existence in Myanmar.”

Hlaing disputed the evidence Gambia cited in its case, including the findings of an international fact-finding mission set up by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council.

“Myanmar’s position is that the Gambia has failed to meet its burden of proof," he said. "This case will be decided on the basis of proven facts, not unsubstantiated allegations. Emotional anguish and blurry factual pictures are not a substitute for rigorous presentation of facts.”

Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi represented her country at jurisdiction hearings in the case in 2019, denying that Myanmar armed forces committed genocide and instead casting the mass exodus of Rohingya people from the country she led as an unfortunate result of a battle with insurgents.

The pro-democracy icon is now in prison after being convicted of what her supporters call trumped-up charges after a military takeover of power.

Myanmar contested the court’s jurisdiction, saying Gambia was not directly involved in the conflict and therefore could not initiate a case. Both countries are signatories to the genocide convention, and in 2022, judges rejected the argument, allowing the case to move forward.

Gambia rejects Myanmar's claims that it was combating terrorism, with Jallow telling judges on Monday that “genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from Myanmar’s pattern of conduct.”

In late 2024, prosecutors at another Hague-based tribunal, the International Criminal Court, requested an arrest warrant for the head of Myanmar’s military regime for crimes committed against the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority. Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who seized power from Suu Kyi in 2021, is accused of crimes against humanity for the persecution of the Rohingya. The request is still pending.

FILE - In this Sept. 7, 2017, file photo, smoke rises from a burned house in Gawdu Zara village, northern Rakhine state, where the vast majority of the country's 1.1 million Rohingya lived, Myanmar. (AP Photo, File)

FILE - In this Sept. 7, 2017, file photo, smoke rises from a burned house in Gawdu Zara village, northern Rakhine state, where the vast majority of the country's 1.1 million Rohingya lived, Myanmar. (AP Photo, File)

LONDON (AP) — A former top UK Foreign Office official says Peter Mandelson did not fail security vetting because of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Olly Robbins says concerns raised during security vetting did not relate to the convicted sex offender.

He said the vetting agency considered Mandelson a “borderline case” and was “leaning toward recommending against” giving him security clearance to be British ambassador to Washington.

The Foreign Office decided to clear him anyway.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

LONDON (AP) — The ex-civil servant behind the decision to approve Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to Washington says he felt political pressure to rush through the appointment despite security concerns.

Olly Robbins, former head of the Foreign Office, was fired by Prime Minister Keir Starmer last week.

He told the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” coming from Starmer’s office.

He said there was “a very, very strong expectation” that Mandelson “needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible.”

Starmer is facing calls to resign over the revelation that Mandelson was given the crucial diplomatic post despite failing security checks.

Robbins said there was “a generally dismissive attitude” to the security vetting in January 2025, before Mandelson went to Washington.

The prime minister says he made the wrong judgment when he picked Jeffrey Epstein ’s friend Mandelson for the job. But he said he would have withdrawn the appointment if he’d known about the security vetting.

Starmer has placed blame squarely on Foreign Office officials, who he said failed to tell him about the security concerns and approved Mandelson’s appointment despite them.

He called it “frankly staggering” that officials didn’t tell him about the failed vetting, which took place in January 2025. Starmer says he only found out last week.

Starmer fired Mandelson in September, nine months into the job, when new details emerged about his friendship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in prison in 2019.

Peter Mandelson is seen with his dog outside his home in London, Monday, April 20, 2026 as Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing a showdown in Parliament over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington.(AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

Peter Mandelson is seen with his dog outside his home in London, Monday, April 20, 2026 as Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer is facing a showdown in Parliament over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington.(AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer leaves 10 Downing Street in London, Monday, April 20, 2026 to face a showdown in Parliament over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington.(AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer leaves 10 Downing Street in London, Monday, April 20, 2026 to face a showdown in Parliament over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington.(AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Recommended Articles