“It Depends Who Killed Them”

By Kyaw Win, Executive Director of Burma Human Rights Network | Arakan Now | Op-Ed

In today’s Burma, Rohingya lives are not valued based on their humanity, but on political convenience. They have become little more than scapegoats — instrumentalized by every side. Whether their suffering is acknowledged or dismissed often depends entirely on who is responsible for it.

When the military junta commits atrocities against the Rohingya, it is widely condemned — at least in the international arena. Reports from the UN, Amnesty International, and other watchdogs have documented mass killings, systematic rape, and the burning of villages. These acts have been labeled genocide by various bodies, including the U.S. government.

Yet when the Arakan Army (AA) carries out violence against the Rohingya, the response — especially from within the Burmese opposition — is silence, denial, or justification. In early 2024, multiple credible sources, including Rohingya eyewitnesses reported that AA fighters killed dozens of Rohingya civilians in northern Rakhine State. Initially, this was dismissed as misinformation — a junta fabrication. But when evidence mounted, including testimonies and videos, the narrative shifted. Instead of condemnation, many excused it as a tragic but inevitable part of civil war, citing “collateral damage.”

Some of the very people who once defended the military and denied genocide have now rebranded themselves as human rights advocates — but only after the 2021 military coup. Before that, they accused activists like us of being paid agents of foreign powers, traitors working against Burma. They labeled Rohingya as illegal immigrants and denied their citizenship, parroting military propaganda.

After the coup, the same voices suddenly acknowledged that the Rohingya were victims of genocide. They began to speak of accountability, of justice, of international law. But their newfound moral clarity seems conditional.

For the National Unity Government (NUG) — the main opposition body — the Rohingya issue is often treated as a public relations tool. Their statements in English promise justice and inclusion, but in Burmese-language platforms, the narrative is far more ambiguous, often avoiding the term “Rohingya” altogether. The NUG has not condemned the AA’s violence against Rohingya civilians in 2024. Instead, their silence has sent a clear message: justice is selective.

This double standard exposes a dangerous truth — that for many, defending Rohingya rights is not about principle, but politics. Those who once denied the genocide and now selectively support other armed groups who commit similar atrocities have not changed; they’ve simply recalibrated their loyalties.

In 2024, when AA forces reportedly executed Rohingya civilians and displaced thousands, there was no mass outrage, no unified opposition statement, no social media campaigns of solidarity. Instead, we saw justification, victim-blaming, or worse — silence. In contrast, when the junta committed similar atrocities, it was rightly condemned as a crime against humanity.

So it seems, in Burma’s political discourse, the value of a Rohingya life depends on who kills them. If it’s the military — it’s genocide. If it’s the AA — it’s regrettable but understandable. If it’s the NUG’s silence — it’s strategic.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. It’s a moral failure. And history will remember it as such.