When the Line Is Crossed: Why Protecting Civilians Is Non-Negotiable
In conflict zones, the fight for justice, self-determination, and freedom is often long and bitter. Ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) across Burma (Myanmar) have long positioned themselves as defenders of their people, resisting decades of oppression and abuse by the Burmese military. These groups earn public trust not only through military victories, but by upholding the moral and legal high ground in the eyes of their communities and the international community.
Recently, an incident in Hump Village has raised difficult but important questions about how resistance forces should conduct themselves when civilians are caught in the middle. Eight villagers—likely acting under duress from the Burmese military—were accused of sheltering enemy troops. They were detained, and later reports emerged of their deaths. A disturbing video surfaced showing one elderly woman being beaten and thrown into water, appearing unconscious after two strikes to her head, and drowning to her death.
Why This Matters
This is not just about a single event—it’s about the long-term credibility and legitimacy of ethnic armed movements. Civilians are not soldiers. Even if accused of aiding enemy forces, international humanitarian law (IHL) makes it clear:
Civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities must be protected from violence (Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3).
Executions without trial are prohibited under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 7 & 8).
These protections are not optional—they are the legal and moral backbone of any force claiming to defend its people.
The Moral Responsibility
Ethnic armed groups have fought for decades against an oppressive military regime that has tortured, raped, and killed civilians. When the oppressed adopt the same tactics as the oppressor, the moral cause begins to erode. Protecting civilians—especially those under duress—is a key measure of moral leadership.
The Legal Risks
Under international law, acts such as extrajudicial killings, torture, or cruel treatment can be prosecuted as:
War crimes (Rome Statute, Article 8)
Crimes against humanity (Rome Statute, Article 7)
Commanders can be held accountable if they order such acts, fail to prevent them, or fail to punish perpetrators (Doctrine of Command Responsibility). These charges can lead to international arrest warrants, sanctions, and loss of foreign support.
The Reputational Consequences
History shows that armed groups maintaining strict codes of conduct toward civilians earn stronger international recognition and local support. Conversely, those associated with civilian harm risk:
Losing the trust of the very people they claim to defend.
Damaging alliances with other ethnic groups.
Weakening the case for future political autonomy.
A Call to Action
If ethnic armed groups want to preserve their moral authority and strengthen their political legitimacy, they must:
Publicly condemn any acts of violence against civilians, regardless of the alleged circumstances.
Investigate and hold accountable those responsible for violations.
Train their fighters in the principles of international humanitarian law.
Demonstrate commitment to justice by protecting even those accused until due process can be carried out.
By doing so, they send a powerful message: “We are different from the oppressors we fight. We protect our people—always.”
Closing Statement
We want to assure our communities and partners that we have full and verified details of exactly what transpired, including the identities of those involved. While we will not release this sensitive information publicly to protect the integrity of ongoing processes and the safety of witnesses, all relevant evidence has been, and will continue to be, provided directly to the proper authorities for investigation and action.
References:
Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Articles 7 & 8.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Customary IHL Database.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21, Judgment (1998).
