“ARE you safe in Myanmar?” One of my foreign friends humbly asked me. Despite the question itself being quite short and simple, I felt very sad to take it. Am I safe in Myanmar? Since the widespread of the targeted murder to the civilians, how can a civilian feel safe? Indeed, my friend’s worrisome query encouraged me to write this article with the perspective of law that I have some knowledge on it.

The atrocities in Myanmar 

In recent days, the anti- State Administration Council (SAC) groups, in particular, the Peoples’ Defence Force (PDF) and its affiliates have been intensified their strategy of targeted murder to the civilians. I am not sure about the total number of lives that have been lost since February 2021, but it is noticeable that over 1,400 civilians have been murdered solely by the PDF. 

PDF inhumanely killed the school teachers in Kayah State just because of not participating in the CDM (Civil Disobedience Movement). Many local administration officers have been shot dead across Myanmar. PDF recently issued death threats to the civil administration officers in the Nay Pyi Taw Region. More than 30 Buddhist monks have been assassinated mostly in the Sagaing region. A street vendor, who sell fish-noddle, and his family, including an eight-month-old baby, has been shot dead by a local PDF assassin in Ayeyawady Region, and later on, claimed that they killed them as an example to the population to receive fearful respect. 

A college student had been shot dead in Sagaing Region for attending the classes and being a daughter of a local administration officer. A nurse, who provides healthcare services to the civilian population, barely survived the targeted murder in the Sagaing Region, but all of her four family members had lost their lives. Six civil servants (electric bill collectors) have been shot by local PDF in Ayeyawady Region and three have lost their lives. Local PDF shot an engineer and other two civil servants to death in Shan State. Several members of opposition parties, mostly USDP, and their families had been murdered and decapitated in some cases. A family of four belonging to a lady police officer has been burnt to death by PDF for their daughter’s refusal to participate in the CDM. A couple, the husband is a Headmaster and wife is a school teacher, shot and stabbed to death by PDF in Mandalay Region. A short video clip appeared on Facebook in which a lady administration officer has assassinated in broad daylight at the local market by PDF while she is distributing surgical masks for COVID-19 prevention. Members of local PDF units in Yangon threw grenades at the COVID-19 vaccination centres causing some casualties. A total of 16 attacks to the COVID-19 vaccination centres by the PDF. The most prevalent cause is the murder of Dr Wint Wint Myaing, Township Medical Officer of Kutkai Township. On her return from COVID-19 vaccination work in remote villages, the PDF assassins dragged her from the car and shot her 11 times to the head for performing such an anti-pandemic campaign without participation to CDM. Another one is the murder of a nurse with pregnancy and her husband in Mandalay for providing healthcare services to the population without participation in CDM. 

Generally, PDF and their affiliates have the tendency of claiming responsibility for such killings and other plots. However, in most cases, the local population is tacitly well-known who are the culprits of the crime, but unable to speak out due to the life-threatening fear factor. That is understandable because if they speak out, they potentially are the next victim. 

Those are the top of the iceberg of atrocities being happened across Myanmar. I don’t wish to dig out all those cases in detail, not because all information could easily be found on social media, but my heart unable to bear the burden of such sadness. 

Terminology 

It is obvious that PDF has been targeting some groups among the civilian population such as civil servants and their families, members of opposition political parties and the civilians who seem to be working with or close to the government. Based on the fact that such acts of PDF against the civilian population shall be labelled as “targeted murder”. 

Who are the civilians? 

It is required to distinguish who are the civilians legally in order to make ourselves have a clear understanding. International Humanitarian Law that governed armed conflicts of all kinds defined civilian as follows; 

“A civilian as any individual who is not a member of one of the following groups: • the regular armed forces, even one that professes allegiance to a government or authority not recognized by the adverse power; 
• the armed forces of a party to the conflict, as well as militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces; 
• all organized groups and units, as long as these groups and units are under a command that is responsible for the conduct of its subordinates, even if the party to the conflict to which it responds is represented by a government or authority not recognized by an adverse party. This last category includes organized resistance movements and other small armed groups.1 { *** Since Geneva Conventions provide the complicated definition of civilian, I choose to state MSF’s (Medicines Sans Frontières) definition appeared in its Practical Guide to the Humanitarian Law which coincides and better understandable version of the definition provided by the Geneva Conventions. Please check Geneva Conventions, if not satisfied with MSF’s definition.} If you looked at the cases carefully, it is evident that a negligible number of security members is included in the overall killings of PDF. The majority of the people murdered by PDF does not belong to any of the aforementioned categories and are confirmed to be civilians by the universally accepted international law. 

They may argue that the civilians they killed were the spies or informers of SAC. The International Humanitarian Law says that even spies must be treated humanely and prohibits any execution without regular trial2. 

What is the advantage of killing civilians? 

By the general perception, I have no idea of why PDF largely targeted the civilians including civil servants. There will be no legal argument on PDF’s fight against security forces. But, why civilians? Why doctors, teachers, nurses, students… Why COVID-19 vaccination centres? 

With the common sense consideration, PDF’s widespread killing of civilians is unlikely to produce an adequate effect to topple SAC or disable the security forces. I presumed that local PDF syndicates and their commanders abroad may have a very well understanding of that point. The question is — what is the result they anticipated from such widespread killing of civilians while having the knowledge that their action is not enough to disable the security forces? Therefore, the possible conclusion that could be drawn from such given situation, by the perspective law, is that PDF’s targeted murder to the civilians, not only to the targeted person but also to his or her family, effectively generate and spread well-founded fear among the general population together with the threat that if any of the civilian will be punished to death if they do not support PDF or fail to participate in the CDM movement. 

The laws on terrorism 

For the purpose of higher understandability, I made the choice to highlight a customary definition, the national definitions of the United States and the United Kingdom, and an expert opinion which are very well known to the world. I am fully aware that the law of the United States and the United Kingdom could not be applied directly in the situation of Myanmar as they are separate sovereign states. But, my intention is to make some tests on the situation of Myanmar in the perspective of their laws on whether the conduct of PDF is satisfied with their norms of terrorism. 
International Law
Another reason is that the national laws of the United States and the UK are the best examples of state practices in defining terrorism. International law Although the internationally agreed definition of terrorism has yet to come out due to some elements of the definition has been deadlocked in the negotiations. However, in 2011, Professor Antonio Cassese, a renowned legal scholar, Professor of Florence University and President of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, has been able to develop an internationally accepted customary definition of international terrorism which stated as follows: 

“International Terrorism 

(i) The perpetuation of a criminal act (such as murder, kidnapping, hostage- taking, arson, and so on), or threatening such an act; 
(ii) The intent to spread fear among the population (which would generally entail the creation of public danger) or directly or indirectly coerce a national or international authority to take some action, or to refrain from taking it; 
(iii) When the act involves a transnational element.” I am fully aware of the international character of the definition, but, I think, there is no limitation to apply domestically, at least to set the norms since the definition itself is customary in nature. The main element of Cassese’s definition has two points applicable to the current situation of Myanmar. First, “perpetration of a criminal act and threatening such act” — killing any person or threatening to do so are no doubt of committing criminal acts. Second, “intent to spread fear among the population” — PDF’s targeted murder of civil servants and their families, members of opposition political parties and other civilians effectively spread fear in the population with the message of “ support PDF and participate CDM or face the death”. The message itself is a fearful threat to the general population. 

United States’ definition of Domestic Terrorism 

Lets’ have a look at how the United States defined Domestic Terrorism. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)’s definition on Domestic Terrorism referenced to the US Code at 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) is as follows;

 “Activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism of the United States (June 2021) also used the same definition as the FBI. Let’s make some tests by placing the Myanmar situation in the perspective of the United States domestic terrorism law. FBI definition has three salient points to our case. First, “acts dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State”— I believe that no criminal on laws on earth, including the United States and Myanmar, permitted such killings of PDF in particular to the civilians. Second, “intimidate or coerce a civilian population”— as we discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the civilian population is exclusively targeted by PDF as their primary intention is to spread fear in creating an environment where the civilian population has no other choice than to support PDF and CDM, rather than a military advantage. Third, “… affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, targeted murder or kidnapping,” — that is what exactly PDF has been doing. The widespread targeted murders against civilians, especially civil servants, have a clear intention to remove supporting pillars of the administrative mechanism of SAC piece-by-piece. Based on the preceding facts the act of PDF proved to be “Terrorism” under the United States law. UK’s Definition of terrorism Another test of Myanmar situation is with the United Kingdom’s definition of terrorism. But I have learnt that the UK has been used one definition to cover both the international and domestic context of terrorism. The current definition of terrorism is derived from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (PTA) which defined terrorism in Section 14(1) as follows: — “The use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear” Since, the formulation of that definition in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (PTA) has been motivated by the conflict in Northern Ireland and in particular the threat posed by the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which only covered acts of domestic terrorism. Therefore, the UK formulated the current definition of terrorism in 2000 for dual-use, domestic and international. Section (1) of the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000, amended twice by the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Counter- Terrorism Act 2008, defined terrorism3 as follows: —4 

“Section 1.1(1) 

In this Act ‘terrorism’ means the use or threat of action where — 

(a) the action falls within subsection (2) [Subsection (2) – (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious property damage, (c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system. ] 

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and 

(c) The use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. 

Section 1.1(3) 

The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied. {*** Rephrased purposely since the definition contained separate paragraphs. If it is not satisfied, see the original definition.} The UK’s definition itself is quite comprehensive and has a broader scope with respect to the element of crime and the intent. Based on the current activities of PDF, their act of targeted murder of the civilian population by means of shooting, beheading, bombing at COVID-19 vaccination centres, banks and schools very well falls under the scope of Subsection (2). In addition to the perpetrations, the intent of PDF effectively falls within the scope of Subsection (1-b) and (1-C) as their ultimate objectives are, first, to disable SAC’s administrative mechanism and, second, to intimidate the public to support them and participate in the CDM for their political advantage. Since PDF has been using arrays of weapons and ammunition supplied by certain entities, needless to say, it falls within the scope of Section 1-1(3). All and all, the elements of a crime under the UK’s definition have simply proved the conduct of PDF in Myanmar to be the effective “Terrorism”. 

Expert definition of terrorism 

In addition to the above national definitions, Professor Bruce Hoffman5, very wellknown counterterrorism and homeland security expert, made a very clear definition of terrorism which is as follows: 

“. . . We may therefore now attempt to define terrorist as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim(s) or object of the terrorist attack. It is meant to instil fear within, and thereby intimidate, a wider “target audience” that might include rival ethnic or religious groups, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general. Terrorism is designed to create power where there is none or to consolidate power where there is little. Through the publicity generated by their violence, terrorists seek to obtain the leverage, influence and power they otherwise lack to effect political change on either local or international scale.” Professor Bruce Hoffman’s definition highly matched with the current situation of Myanmar. Despite PDF has been receiving support from the same part of the population, the majority of the population still exercises their civil and political rights by means of not supporting PDF or supporting other political entities. In this given context, the easiest way to divert their support to the PDF in a short period of time is the application of “fear” as a weapon within the population. That is the reason why PDF is letting the effect of fear spread through the entire population in the country by exercising the tactic of targeted murders in order to receive support from non-PDF-supporters. Currently, the fear generated by PDF has effectively been instilled into the mind of the entire population, as a psychological effect, spread by the example-killings to the non-PDF-supporters. The frequent issuance of dead-threats to the civil servants by PDF is another proof of “Terrorism” by Professor Bruce Hoffman’s definition. 

Conclusion 

We have discussed the atrocities being happened in Myanmar from the perspective of various legal regimes. The decision is up to the readers. My humble advice is not to draw the conclusion directly by reading only this article. It would be more precise and beneficial in the decision making if the readers collect information of what really happening in Myanmar from various sources as much as possible, make some tests with various perspectives of law, and then decide. It is to be careful that the majority of mainstream media, both international and domestic, have the tendency of covering one-sided information and some true stories have not been touched or even removed in the social media in particular in Facebook and YouTube. We, the people of Myanmar, hate terrorism as much as the peoples around the world do. At the same time, I do believe that democracy cannot be promoted by terrorism. 

We have laws for the prevention and suppression of terrorism in both international and domestic contexts. That means countries around the world have an obligation to prevent and suppress terrorism regardless of where it happens. I would like to beg the international community, especially those leading democratic countries, to help us to prevent and suppress terrorism in Myanmar since your negligence on such terrorist acts may cause further loss of lives and proliferation of terrorism in Myanmar. I pray Myanmar is free from Terrorism.