Voting is one of the most important ways that citizens can participate in shaping the future of their country. Yet, some people decide not to vote because they think their one vote will not matter, while others are simply not interested in politics. Some feel they do not know enough about politics or politicians and do not have the time to learn before an election. Finally, some citizens choose not to vote because they do not like any of the candidates. These reasons may seem personal and harmless, but in reality, the absence of voting represents a significant loss of chances for both the individual and the society they live in. When a citizen does not vote, they lose the opportunity to have their voice heard in decisions that directly affect their lives. Policies on education, healthcare, employment, and civil rights are shaped by elected leaders, and abstaining from voting means surrendering influence over these critical areas. Even if one vote seems small, elections are often decided by narrow margins, and the collective power of many individuals who think their vote does not matter can change the outcome. By not voting, citizens allow others to decide for them, weakening their own agency and representation. The absence of voting also erodes collective power. Democracy depends on participation, and when large numbers of citizens abstain, the balance of representation shifts toward groups that consistently vote. This often results in policies that favour certain demographics while ignoring others. For example, younger citizens who fail to vote may find their concerns about education or employment overlooked, while older generations who vote regularly see their priorities reflected in government decisions. Thus, non-voting contributes to inequality in representation and strengthens entrenched elites who benefit from low participation. Beyond personal and collective losses, not voting reflects a weakening of civic responsibility. Voting is not only a right but also a duty that sustains democratic culture. When citizens abstain, leaders are less accountable, and democratic institutions lose legitimacy. This opens the door to authoritarian tendencies, corruption, and policies that serve narrow interests rather than the public good. The absence of voting also leads to stagnation, as governments face less pressure to innovate or address pressing issues. Citizens who do not vote miss the chance to demand change, leaving outdated policies in place. There are also psychological and social consequences of non-voting. Citizens who abstain often feel alienated from their communities and governments, reinforcing cycles of disengagement. They lose the sense of empowerment that comes from participating in democracy and may begin to believe that politics is irrelevant to their lives. This alienation weakens solidarity within communities, as voting is a collective act that affirms shared values and responsibilities. Moreover, when parents abstain, they often model disengagement for their children, perpetuating cycles of non-participation across generations. History teaches us that widespread non-voting can have grave consequences. In societies where citizens disengage, authoritarian leaders often exploit the vacuum, consolidating power without resistance. The absence of voting undermines freedoms and disregards the sacrifices made by those who fought for the right to vote. It diminishes a nation’s moral authority and weakens its voice on the global stage, as policies shaped by disengaged electorates lack legitimacy. In many countries, hard-won rights to vote were achieved through struggle, protest, and sacrifice. To abstain from voting is to ignore these struggles and to waste the opportunities they created. The reasons people give for not voting — whether believing their vote does not matter, disinterest in politics, lack of knowledge, or dissatisfaction with candidates — are understandable but ultimately harmful. Each reason represents a missed opportunity to influence the future. Citizens who abstain lose the chance to be part of change, to hold leaders accountable, and to affirm their place in the democratic community. The absence of voting is therefore not just a personal choice but a collective loss that weakens democracy itself. Reclaiming the duty to vote is essential. Citizens must recognize that voting is both a right and a responsibility. Governments and civil society should invest in civic education to address ignorance and apathy, while making voting more accessible through technolo- gy and inclusive policies. Most importantly, societies must cultivate a culture where voting is valued as a shared duty, reinforcing its importance across generations. By embracing this duty, citizens can reclaim their lost chances, strengthen democracy, and ensure that their voices contribute to shaping a future that reflects the will of the people. Ultimately, the absence of voting is not only about missing a single election. It is about missing the chance to be part of history, to influence the direction of society, and to stand alongside fellow citizens in shaping a collective destiny. Each ballot cast is a statement of belonging, a declaration that one’s voice matters, and a contribution to the ongoing story of democracy. When citizens abstain, they silence themselves, leaving gaps in the narrative of their nation. The loss of chances is therefore profound: it is the loss of agency, of representation, of solidarity, and of the opportunity to shape a better future. By choosing to vote, citizens affirm their role in democracy and reclaim the opportunities that are lost when they abstain. Voting is not perfect, nor is it the only form of civic engagement, but it remains the most direct and powerful tool citizens possess to shape their future. To abstain is to relinquish this tool, to forfeit the chance to be heard, and to weaken the democratic fabric that binds societies together. The duty to vote is, therefore, not only a personal responsibility but also a collective necessity. By embracing it, citizens reclaim their lost chances and strengthen the promise of democracy for generations to come.
It was an emotional and inspiring morning to see thousands of people waving Myanmar national flags, under the February sunshine, welcoming home our bravest and most gentle warriors from the frontline.On 1 February 2026, the team of Myanmar Agent led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and Union Minister and Union Attorney-General Dr Thida Oo arrived back at Yangon International Airport at around 9 am. The team’s return home was saluted with a big respect and a warm welcome by thousands of Myanmar nationals from different walks of life, enthusiastically, voluntarily and respectfully.The togetherness of the people in the crowd by singing Myanmar’s national anthem while waving the national flags that morning was a perfect match that signals the solidarity of all Myanmar citizens in dealing with the genocide accusation.Bravest and most gentle warriors with full respect and honourThe Agent of Myanmar and the legal team led by Lead Counsel Mr Christopher Staker, including Professor Alina Miron, Mr Stefan Talmon, Ms Chiara Cordone, and Ms Leigh Lawrie represented the Republic of the Union of Myanmar at the Public Hearings in the Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia versus Myanmar) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).They defended not only the truth and justice, as well as the pride and prestige of our country against the accusation of the utmost gravity with their professional skills, honour and unparalleled courage before the ICJ with solid evidence, historical facts and records from 12 to 29 January 2026.Since the case is extremely significant for Myanmar, the people of Myanmar from various backgrounds are not only closely monitoring the follow-ups and the proceedings but also standing back together with the team.The Agent of Myanmar Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and the legal team presented truths and facts of what had really happened in Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017, which the world is not able to deny and refuse, while The Gambia made accusations based on emotions and make-up narratives. Within three weeks, the Gambia failed to present the evidence objectively or failed to meet the required legal evidentiary standards.What is more, the Gambia insisted on using the self-claimed name for the Bengalis. We, our country and our people respect human rights, but we firmly reject the groundless accusations and demands.Accordingly, the Agent of Myanmar and Myanmar’s Counsels contended, with a very detailed presentation as per the historical facts, that those populations are culturally, ethnically and religiously part of the same group as the population living immediately across the border in Bangladesh.Citizenship statusIt goes without saying that there are differences and conditions between the statuses of ‘National’ and ‘Citizen’ all over the world. Those who immigrated and lived in a country for a certain period of time, as prescribed by the specific laws, here in Myanmar, after three generations, with no violation nor breaching the laws of the host country, may have the right to naturalize their citizenship. Still, they must obey and abide by the Constitutional provisos and the host country’s existing laws.The Gambia unreasonably demanded a guarantee for the citizenship of the Bengalis in the country, which they claim they are being genocided. Such ridiculous and absurd demands made by The Gambia in the hearings are unprofessional and out of reason. The citizenship matter, as a matter of fact, is under Myanmar’s supreme authority and thus, The Gambia or any other nation is not even qualified to criticize the 1982 Citizenship Law of Myanmar.However, Agent of Myanmar Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing calmly explained with respect before the court about verification and scrutiny processes for citizenship statuses of Bengalis. “There are around two hundred thousand Bengalis holding citizenship cards across the country, and fifty thousand Bengalis holding NVCs in Rakhine State alone. Those who apply for an NVC and are found not to be entitled to citizenship can continue to live lawfully in Myanmar as holders of an NVC (National Verification Card),” said U Ko Ko Hlaing in the presentation.Furthermore, “Despite this, many Bengalis in northern Rakhine State refuse to engage with the NVC process. Some refuse on political grounds. Some refuse because they are pressured by activists not to do so, or have received false information from activists that anyone who applies for an NVC will never be granted citizenship. All this has nothing to do with genocide,” he added in the hearing.Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing speaking at the Yangon International Airport.Argument for the nation’s prideDr Naing Swe Oo, senior advisor to Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies, expressed his view and gratitude to the Myanmar Agent team as follows: –“The Agent of Myanmar, led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing, argued for the pride of our country. We, all Myanmar citizens, are confident that we did not commit genocide. As a think tank personnel, I also monitored the case and observed that the Gambia only relied on the reports of FFM and IIMM (Fact-Finding Mission and Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar). But the team led by the Union Minister presented very detail in the appeal. I am very proud of and thank the Agent of Myanmar and the legal team.”This article is dedicated to honouring the team of Myanmar Agent led by Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing and Union Minister and Union Attorney-General Dr Thida Oo, the legal team led by Lead Counsel Mr Christopher Staker, including Professor Alina Miron, Mr Stefan Talmon, Ms Chiara Cordone, and Ms Leigh Lawrie, and every member involved in the teams who defended the truth and justice for, and the pride and prestige of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and its people.The people of Myanmar value and respect every single effort of both the Agent of Myanmar and Myanmar’s Counsels as the bravest but the gentlest warriors ever.gnlm
Voting is one of the most important ways that citizens can participate in shaping the future of their country. Yet, some people decide not to vote because they think their one vote will not matter, while others are simply not interested in politics. Some feel they do not know enough about politics or politicians and do not have the time to learn before an election. Finally, some citizens choose not to vote because they do not like any of the candidates. These reasons may seem personal and harmless, but in reality, the absence of voting represents a significant loss of chances for both the individual and the society they live in.When a citizen does not vote, they lose the opportunity to have their voice heard in decisions that directly affect their lives. Policies on education, healthcare, employment, and civil rights are shaped by elected leaders, and abstaining from voting means surrendering influence over these critical areas. Even if one vote seems small, elections are often decided by narrow margins, and the collective power of many individuals who think their vote does not matter can change the outcome. By not voting, citizens allow others to decide for them, weakening their own agency and representation.The absence of voting also erodes collective power. Democracy depends on participation, and when large numbers of citizens abstain, the balance of representation shifts toward groups that consistently vote. This often results in policies that favour certain demographics while ignoring others. For example, younger citizens who fail to vote may find their concerns about education or employment overlooked, while older generations who vote regularly see their priorities reflected in government decisions. Thus, non-voting contributes to inequality in representation and strengthens entrenched elites who benefit from low participation.Beyond personal and collective losses, not voting reflects a weakening of civic responsibility.Voting is not only a right but also a duty that sustains democratic culture. When citizens abstain, leaders are less accountable, and democratic institutions lose legitimacy. This opens the door to authoritarian tendencies, corruption, and policies that serve narrow interests rather than the public good. The absence of voting also leads to stagnation, as governments face less pressure to innovate or address pressing issues.Citizens who do not vote miss the chance to demand change, leaving outdated policies in place.There are also psychological and social consequences of non-voting. Citizens who abstain often feel alienated from their communities and governments, reinforcing cycles of disengagement. They lose the sense of empowerment that comes from participating in democracy and may begin to believe that politics is irrelevant to their lives. This alienation weakens solidarity within communities, as voting is a collective act that affirms shared values and responsibilities. Moreover, when parents abstain, they often model disengagement for their children, perpetuating cycles of non-participation across generations.History teaches us that widespread non-voting can have grave consequences. In societies where citizens disengage, authoritarian leaders often exploit the vacuum, consolidating power without resistance. The absence of voting undermines freedoms and disregards the sacrifices made by those who fought for the right to vote. It diminishes a nation’s moral authority and weakens its voice on the global stage, as policies shaped by disengaged electorates lack legitimacy. In many countries, hard-won rights to vote were achieved through struggle, protest, and sacrifice.To abstain from voting is to ignore these struggles and to waste the opportunities they created.The reasons people give for not voting — whether believing their vote does not matter, disinterest in politics, lack of knowledge, or dissatisfaction with candidates — are understandable but ultimately harmful. Each reason represents a missed opportunity to influence the future. Citizens who abstain lose the chance to be part of change, to hold leaders accountable, and to affirm their place in the democratic community. The absence of voting is therefore not just a personal choice but a collective loss that weakens democracy itself.Reclaiming the duty to vote is essential. Citizens must recognize that voting is both a right and a responsibility. Governments and civil society should invest in civic education to address ignorance and apathy, while making voting more accessible through technolo-gy and inclusive policies. Most importantly, societies must cultivate a culture where voting is valued as a shared duty, reinforcing its importance across generations.By embracing this duty, citizens can reclaim their lost chances, strengthen democracy, and ensure that their voices contribute to shaping a future that reflects the will of the people.Ultimately, the absence of voting is not only about missing a single election. It is about missing the chance to be part of history, to influence the direction of society, and to stand alongside fellow citizens in shaping a collective destiny. Each ballot cast is a statement of belonging, a declaration that one’s voice matters, and a contribution to the ongoing story of democracy. When citizens abstain, they silence themselves, leaving gaps in the narrative of their nation. The loss of chances is therefore profound: it is the loss of agency, of representation, of solidarity, and of the opportunity to shape a better future.By choosing to vote, citizens affirm their role in democracy and reclaim the opportunities that are lost when they abstain. Voting is not perfect, nor is it the only form of civic engagement, but it remains the most direct and powerful tool citizens possess to shape their future. To abstain is to relinquish this tool, to forfeit the chance to be heard, and to weaken the democratic fabric that binds societies together. The duty to vote is, therefore, not only a personal responsibility but also a collective necessity. By embracing it, citizens reclaim their lost chances and strengthen the promise of democracy for generations to come.gnlm
Myanmar, the nation living with Buddha’s teachings, is globally famous as “The Golden Land” for its abundance of golden pagodas, stupas and temples across the land. People of Myanmar innately borne a peaceful mind and a non-aggressive life since ancient. Peaceful coexistence, generosity, kindness, and love are the typical characteristics of the Myanmar people.King Anawrahta firstly united the diverse people into a common faith and cultural identity, and established the very first Myanmar nation – the Bagan Empire – in AD 1044. Since then, daily life, ritual and traditional activities, festivals, perspectives, beliefs and cultures of the Myanmar people have been primarily associated with Buddha’s thoughts and teachings.Gifted by nature, Myanmar is one of the most beautiful countries, possessing rich natural resources and picturesque scenes from icy mountains, colourful hill ranges, seasonal forests, and beaches and archipelagos. The land is also a gateway linking the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Such a precious heritage given by nature and founded by our ancestors is our home.Rakhine StateRakhine State is situated on Myanmar’s western coast and is territorially connected with Chin State, Magway Region, Bago Region, and Ayeyawady Region, and the Bay of Bengal and Bangladesh to the west. Indigenous ethnicities living in Rakhine State include Rakhine, Kaman, Bamar, Mro, Khami, Thet, Maramagyi, and Dinat.Looking back at the bygone era in the 19th century, Myanmar could not avoid the external shocks of colonialism. Invasion by the coercive forces of British imperialism left the country in chaos with many misfortune inheritances. British imperialists brought many consequences to the people of Myanmar that they had never experienced in the land before colonial rule. Instability, armed revolutions, conflicts and crises, and political disunity among ethnicities were the results of exercising divide and rule tactics by the imperialists.The Bengali immigrant issue became one of the unfortunate consequences. British imperialists imported Bengalis from neighbouring areas to employ them in cultivation and plantations in Myanmar during the colonial rule. Since then, people with different physical features, different facial appearances, different spoken languages, different belief and different traditional outfits started arriving in Myanmar’s western land. Those people from neighbouring territory (today Bangladesh) were never brothers and sisters of ours.Rakhine State in 2016The ongoing court trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which Myanmar is facing for committing genocide the Bengalis can be traced back in October 2016 in Rakhine State when the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) terrorists raided Myanmar’s borderline security outposts, where only approximately ten police personnel were deployed in each outpost, with disproportionately larger numbers around 400 ARSA terrorists in the attack. It was part of their plan to create the plot “Myanmar troops killing civilians” as a forerunner of genocide.In the terroristic assaults committed by the ARSA terrorists, at least 20-40 Myanmar police personnel were brutally killed, and some were dismembered. In response, the Myanmar Tatmadaw launched a military operation of counter-terrorism measures. It truly was a counter-terrorism measure taken against the armed terrorists by the national armed forces (Tatmadaw) in the sphere of defending the country’s sovereignty. In fact, the crackdown only targeted the armed terrorists (ARSA) who attacked the country’s sovereignty.Following the October 2016 outrage, the ARSA terrorists, within Rakhine State, especially in the borderline villages, not only committed terroristic offences against small security outposts but also killed indigenous Rakhine, Mro, and Kaman ethnics, and Hindu people who had been living with peaceful coexistence in the area throughout history. The incidents resulted in the 2017 bloodshed in Rakhine State.There were many solid reports that the ARSA terrorists killed more than 150 Hindus, including women, men, and children, and abducted several Hindu villagers in August 2017. Such an atrocity committed by the ARSA terrorists is deemed to be a crime against humanity. It certainly was the genocide. However, the massacre of the Hindus killed by ARSA terrorists did not receive international attention or widespread condemnation at that time. Rapes, brutal killings, forcibly occupying the villages and fields, and setting houses and villages ablaze are the techniques usually used by terrorists against other communities in Rakhine State territory, especially in the borderline areas.No motive to commit genocideU Khin Maung Zaw, joint-secretary of Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies, remarked in a talk show about Myanmar versus The Gambia at the ICJ held at MRTV on 17 January that “We have no reason or intention to commit genocide against them (Bengalis). The land is ours. We do not need to occupy the land by force. We do not need to get rid of the locals (Rakhine, Mro, Kaman, Thet, Daingnet and Hindus). They are our people,” giving an example by contrasting the situation when the Americans discovered and invaded the American continent.A rational argumentU Ko Ko, Chairman of the Myanmar Narrative Think Tank group, posed a logical question in the same talk show, “If we committed genocide, why is the population of those people steadily increasing over the years? Figure of their population keeps growing over the years.”Defending the motherland is not a crimeAttacking a country’s Tatmadaw, security outposts, and border guard police, and mass killing the indigenous natives is one hundred per cent humiliating the sovereignty and threatening the country’s national security. It is crystal clear that defending or protecting sovereignty and national security is not a crime nor genocide. There is a line between advocating human rights and defending national security in the debate of national interest. It was purely a passive defence to protect the motherland.(Views expressed in the article solely belong to the author.)gnlm
For nearly two decades, Washington’s policy stance towards Myanmar has oscillated between moral outrage and strategic neglect. No one denies that Myanmar’s past includes human rights abuses, but the question is: How long will we let that dictate US foreign policy instead of thinking strategically about the future?As an economist and a former member of Congress, I have spent my career examining economic ethics, weighing moral claims against competing interests. I believe America’s sanctions-obsessed approach to Myanmar has only weakened our country’s position in one of Asia’s most consequential geopolitical crossroads.President Trump, however, has signalled a possible shift in that policy stance. First of all, diplomatic engagement with Myanmar is not an endorsement of the country’s government; it is merely an investment in American Influence, regional stability and long-term economic security. Furthermore, there is no counterproposal that will leave the US and Myanmar better off.Recently, Myanmar’s multiphase national elections, monitored by international observers and accompanied by prisoner releases, have prompted cautious openness from the Trump administration. Mr Trump has deliberately avoided the sanctimonious megaphone diplomacy that characterized earlier US policy, choosing instead to preserve the possibility of dealmaking. That restraint matters, as diplomacy requires open doors and levelheadedness.Critics argue that US engagement in Myanmar legitimizes a flawed political process. I disagree. As economists understand, incentives shape outcomes. Total disengagement through sweeping sanctions and public condemnation has not improved governance in Myanmar. It has, however, created a power vacuum that has been eagerly filled by America’s adversaries.China already operates a major oil and gas pipeline from Myanmar’s coast to Yunnan Province, locking in strategic energy access and political influence. Russia, eager to expand its footprint in South-East Asia, stands ready to deepen military and economic ties wherever the United States retreats. If America is serious about strengthening our geopolitical position, we cannot afford a policy of absence. The status quo is not working.There is also a hard-headed economic case for engagement. Myanmar sits atop significant reserves of oil, natural gas and rare earth minerals. These resources are indispensable to modern energy systems, advanced manufacturing and national defence. The global scramble for critical minerals is intensifying, and dependence on single-country supply chains has proved strategically reckless.Investing in energy and critical mineral opportunities in Myanmar would diversify supply chains while giving the United States economic stakes that translate into diplomatic influence. America’s broader Indo-Pacific strategy depends on credible engagement with South-East Asia, including through forums such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Quiet diplomacy at regional summits, confidence-building measures along borders and economic reentry all signal that the United States intends to remain a serious player.Many US companies exited Myanmar after the 2021 sanctions regime was put into place by a Biden executive order, surrendering ground to state-backed Chinese firms. With those measures set to expire early this year unless renewed, Washington faces a choice: either double down on a strategy that has ceded US influence or recalibrate towards a strategic engagement that advances US interests.The US Treasury’s recent decision to remove certain Burmese individuals from sanctions lists, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s positive reference to Myanmar’s elections and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s instructions to State Department officials to avoid prejudging electoral legitimacy overseas all suggest that a more nuanced approach is possible.Senator Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, preferring the old US strategy of disengaging and handing wins to our adversaries, has dismissed Myanmar’s elections outright.The United States should push for peace, humanitarian aid and political inclusion in the countries where we are engaged diplomatically. Those goals, however, can be achieved only from a seat at the table. The president’s playbook is very clear in the 2025 National Security Strategy document: “Flexible Realism – US policy will be realistic about what is possible and desirable to seek in its dealings with other nations. We seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories. We recognize and affirm that there is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical in acting according to such a realistic assessment or in maintaining good relations with countries whose governing systems and societies differ from ours, even as we push like-minded friends to uphold our shared norms, furthering our interests as we do so.”Strategic engagement with Myanmar offers the United States a chance to strengthen our position against our adversaries, secure critical resources and promote stability in a geopolitically crucial region of the world. Because walking away at this crucial moment would be strategically unsound, Congress should back President Trump on this strategic recalibration because American interests demand it.Dave Brat is a PhD economist. He represented Virginia’s 7th Congressional District from 2014 to 2019.gnlm
At the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, The Gambia has filed a case accusing Myanmar of violating the Genocide Convention. This case has now reached the stage of the final hearing. On 10 January, the BBC aired an interview with The Gambia’s lawyer, Mr Arsalan Suleman, regarding this case. Carefully examining the information Mr Suleman shared in this interview, one can see their true intentions, attempts to influence judicial proceedings through the media, and certain baseless accusations.Listening to Mr Arsalan Suleman’s interview, the most notable point is that he focused more on compensation and remedies rather than on justice and rights. Mr Suleman stated that at the final stage of this case, if the court decides that Myanmar committed genocide, the aim is to issue orders on how the victims should be remedied and how much compensation should be paid.Despite their overt focus on human rights and the topic of genocide, in practice, their primary objective appears to be obtaining compensation from Myanmar, rather than seeking recognition for the Bengali community within the country. Legally, discussing compensation before the case has been decided and before the Court has issued a final ruling raises questions about the true intentions behind their actions in this case. To put it plainly, The Gambia is creating this situation with the expectation of some form of financial gain, much like the saying “watering the banyan tree for one’s own benefit”.In judicial proceedings, both parties to a case have a responsibility to respect and comply with the court’s procedures. Throughout the current litigation process, Myanmar’s representatives have strictly adhered to legal frameworks in their actions and have not engaged in any form of media propaganda. Myanmar, as a country that respects and abides by the ICJ Statute, is carrying out the proceedings quietly and with dignity.However, the legal team of The Gambia and its supporters behind the scenes have been excessively exploiting international media. The current BBC interview, conducted a few days before the court hearing began, is merely a pre-orchestrated media campaign aimed at influencing international public opinion before the court proceedings begin. They are merely trying to cover up their legal weaknesses by using the power of the media.The reason this case has dragged on until now is not that The Gambia’s allegations are strong, but solely because the ICJ decided that it has jurisdiction. When submitting its preliminary objections, Myanmar had also pointed out important legal issues. In particular, Myanmar argued that the real applicant in this case is not The Gambia but the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), and that only states have the right to bring cases under the ICJ Statute, while organizations do not.In addition, Myanmar firmly argued that there is no right to directly refer or bring a complaint to the Court because it has entered a reservation to Article VIII of the Genocide Convention. However, it is only because the Court decided that it has jurisdiction that the case is continuing in this way. Looking at these points, it is clear that it does not mean at all that The Gambia’s accusations against Myanmar are correct.When Mr Suleman asserts that their evidence is solid, he primarily cites reports from organizations such as the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission (FFM). However, these reports disregard the actual situation on the ground and consist solely of one-sided accusations. Reports such as those by the FFM are mostly based on information that differs from the actual situation on the ground and on unverified rumours, and Myanmar has already refuted them with solid evidence.Accordingly, the sources cited by The Gambia are merely organizations that are politically biased and operate with financial backing. There is considerable doubt as to whether their evidence meets the standard of credibility and reliability required for acceptance by the court.One key fact that The Gambia has hidden in its interviews is the original source of the events in 2016 and 2017. According to these events, it is clear that Myanmar did not act with the intention of committing genocide. In reality, at that time, the ARSA terrorist organization carried out synchronized attacks on multiple police outposts in Rakhine State. Accordingly, it was solely a counter-terrorism operation that had to be carried out by the Government as an unavoidable response in order to safeguard state sovereignty and territorial security.No country in the world would just stand by if terrorists attacked its security forces and residents. Furthermore, even at present, the Myanmar government’s efforts to suppress the ethnic armed AA terrorist insurgent organization in that region, in order to protect the safety and security of the local population, reflect the complex security situation there. There is also solid evidence regarding the brutal acts committed by the ARSA terrorist organization.There are reports that the evidence to be submitted by The Gambia will include statements from defectors. These individuals are merely deserters who have violated the rules and regulations of the Myanmar Armed Forces and fled. It does bring into question whether the statements of such criminals and those who seek to evade responsibility by fleeing can be considered as the truth. They are highly likely to make statements for some kind of personal gain. Accordingly, their statements cannot be legally considered reliable.From The Gambia’s perspective, it is merely politically targeting the non-indigenous Bengali people. Their actions aim to pressure Myanmar for political purposes that have no legal validity. However, Myanmar is firmly addressing the matter in accordance with the law. Although The Gambia, in its interview, has accused Myanmar of not complying with the ICJ’s provisional measures, Myanmar, in reality, is fully complying with the Court’s directives. Myanmar has been submitting regular reports to the Court every six months.Furthermore, Myanmar has been making continuous efforts to screen and receive the Bengalis who have arrived in the country. However, their failure to return is not due to any shortcomings of the Myanmar side, but rather because of the incitement and obstruction by third-party organizations, the lack of willingness on their own part to return, and their association with those seeking political gain.This ICJ case is not an ordinary legal matter for Myanmar; it concerns the country’s dignity, sovereignty, and national interests. Myanmar is legally addressing and resolving international misconceptions and unjust accusations for a crime it did not commit.In this regard, the entire population needs to stand firmly behind the delegation representing Myanmar in court during this critical period. It is believed that the truth will eventually prevail, and the political narratives of The Gambia and the organizations behind it will be null and void before the law. For this reason, everyone should be vigilant against incitement and media propaganda at home and abroad and strongly support our representatives.gnlm
The day of 28 December 2025 marked a very important milestone in Myanmar’s political history. In other words, it can be called a historic day on which the genuine will of the people who truly support a multiparty democracy was clearly demonstrated. From the early morning to the evening, peaceable civilians in 102 townships across the nation revealed their genuine desire through casting the ballot, which came from their hearts. With the aim of bringing about an elected government for the sake of their future, peace and stability, and better opportunities for the nation’s political, economic, and social development, they proved how they fulfilled their civic duties by taking their steps towards the polling stations where Phase I of the election was held.The results of Phase I of the election differed from those of previous conventional elections and revealed that good outcomes were achieved to pursue the goal of multiparty democracy despite terrorist threats, disruptions, and attacks. In particular, this reflected an expression of the genuine desire of the people, who totally rejected the various forms of threats, harassment, and violent attacks carried out by those who do not wish for peace and stability in Myanmar, the political hypocrites who distort the definition of democracy, and terrorists who seek to achieve political objectives through armed struggle.If an elected government emerges, it will become difficult for egotists who exploit political causes for personal gain to maintain their position. Likewise, armed terrorist groups operating under the guise of ethnic representation, who are attempting to seize territorial control through armed struggle, fear the emergence of Hluttaws where ethnic issues can be legitimately raised. For these reasons, they carried out criticism, slander, threats, and attacks from multiple fronts to prevent the election from taking place and to deny recognition of the election results. In response, the Government and the Election Commission acted in accordance with the law to counter such multifaceted disruptions and attacks, ensuring that eligible voters were able to cast their votes freely, safely, and without intimidation.If we review Phase I of the election, pro-democracy citizens eagerly participated in the electoral process for establishing a democratic system. However, anti-democracy terrorists carried out various forms of attacks to disrupt and prevent the emergence of a legitimate Hluttaw in terms of politics. In other words, the difference can be witnessed between the will of pro-democracy citizens and the acts of anti-democracy terrorists. Seeing the results of Phase I of the election, it can be seen that the attempts of anti-election actions of the terrorists totally failed, as the people do not support their terrorist acts.Phase I of the 2025 Multiparty Democratic General Election began at 6 am on 28 December. As soon as the polling stations opened, it was truly spine-tingling to see people eagerly lining up and waiting to cast their votes, especially the large number of young voters. Seeing so many young people coming to vote even drew praise from Mr Yerman Mukhtar, Vice-Chairman of the Kazakhstan Election Commission, who remarked, “I see many young people among the voters. This is a very positive sign.” He further commented, “So many young people lining up to vote shows that this country’s future is looking very bright.” This demonstrates that the nation’s youth have rejected violent paths. Instead, they proved that they want to shape their own destiny within the framework of the law.Although some negative media outlets claimed that young voters were opposing the election, international observers vividly witnessed young voters lining up enthusiastically to cast their votes. Mr Sholban Kara-Ool, Vice-Chairman of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, also stated, “Seeing people lining up to vote clearly shows the public is genuinely engaged in choosing its future and its rightful government.”Nicaraguan Ambassador Mr Mario Jose Armengol Campos personally observed the situation on the ground and testified, saying, “From what I have observed, the people of Myanmar are voting safely. I saw them voting freely on their own will.” The smiles and enthusiasm on the faces of the voters served to silently refute the fabricated reports circulated by negative media outlets.It can be said that the people have come to clearly grasp the essence of democracy. It is also noteworthy that the Head of State himself spoke to journalists after casting his vote. He stated, “If someone says they support a multiparty democracy, they should actively take part in elections, which are the essence of democracy. Not voting may indicate a lack of full understanding of democracy.” Those who refrain from voting after being influenced by terrorist incitement, or who boycott the vote because the party or individual they support is not participating, are just the ones with a low level of democratic awareness who do not figure out their civic duties and rights.Having learned lessons from the widespread reputational damage and international embarrassment caused by the NLD’s electoral fraud during the 2020 general election, the Government can be seen to have made systematic preparations this time. No matter how the anti-government media attempt to make accusations, if one listens to the genuine voices of the people who actually cast their votes, the truth becomes evident. For example, a teenage girl from Pyinmana who voted for the first time shared her feelings, saying, “I feel that I have fulfilled the civic duties, and I have raised high hopes for good leaders who will benefit young people.” These are not scripted or staged words. In fact, these reflect the sincere sentiments of citizens who voted with honest hopes for the progress of their country and their people. They did not heed malicious words spread through the air. Instead, they went to the polling stations on their own convictions.One of the distinctive features of this election is that technological safeguards were put in place to prevent wrong voter lists and electoral fraud. Even though certain negative media have raised suspicions by suggesting the possibility of irregularities, in reality, this election utilized the Myanmar Electronic Voting Machines (MEVMs), which were domestically developed by Myanmar experts themselves. Regarding these machines, Nicaraguan Ambassador based in Vietnam, Mr Mario Jose Armengol Campos, praised the initiative, stating, “I consider the Electronic Voting Machine to be a good idea. By using this machine, voting can be done more quickly, and results can also be obtained faster.”As clarified by the Union Election Commission, these machines operate on a stand-alone basis and are not connected to the internet, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth, making external hacking or interference impossible. In addition, there are no invalid ballots. Accuracy of the voting results is assured. This constitutes a key factor in ensuring a transparent and fair election. The electoral system is no longer limited to the previous First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system alone. Instead, it has been changed to and implemented as a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system that combines proportional representation (PR). In this election, as many as 4,863 candidates from 57 political parties are running. This clearly shows that the election is oriented towards all-inclusive participation.It can be said that the people have come to clearly grasp the essence of democracy. It is also noteworthy that the Head of State himself spoke to journalists after casting his vote. He stated, “If someone says they support a multiparty democracy, they should actively take part in elections, which are the essence of democracy. Not voting may indicate a lack of full understanding of democracy.” Those who refrain from voting after being influenced by terrorist incitement, or who boycott the vote because the party or individual they support is not participating, are just the ones with a low level of democratic awareness who do not figure out their civic duties and rights.Some eligible voters may not participate in Phase I of the election due to low political awareness and in fear for their lives because of terrorist threats. Nevertheless, according to statements released by the Election Commission, the fact that the percentage of voters who came to vote despite intimidation and obstruction is higher than those who chose a “No Vote” clearly demonstrates the genuine will of the people who desire peace and stability.One notable point is that the saboteurs’ “No Vote” campaigns did not produce the results they had hoped for in reality. Instead, the election concluded peacefully, highlighting the defeat of those who opposed it. The time has come for the public to carefully consider whether choosing “No Vote” truly benefits them, or whether casting a vote to support a party that can contribute to the nation’s interests, while the right to choose still exists, is the more beneficial option. Although Phase I has concluded, it is not too late. By taking the situation in Phase I as a reference, eligible voters for the remaining Phase II and Phase III of the election still have the opportunity to decide whether to participate in a “No Vote” or to cast their votes. Hence, I strongly urge responsible citizens who genuinely wish to see the country develop and progress not to be misled by political manipulation, and not to forfeit their rights, but to exercise their right to cast their votes.Threats telling unarmed politicians, who believes in multiparty democratic path and wish to deal with political problems by political means instead of armed struggle, not to take part in the election, bombings of party offices, drone attacks on polling station areas, and attacks on towns and villages with rockets and heavy weapons on the morning of voting, all intended to frighten citizens who would come to cast their votes, are acts of terrorism. These terrorist acts are violations of human rights because such attacks attempt to disrupt and destroy the right of eligible voters to cast their ballots.While there are organizations that criticize, attack, and oppose the electoral process, which is an unavoidable stage for the emergence of the multiparty democratic system desired by the people, and terrorists who use various means to disrupt and destroy the election, there are also nine countries that understand the essence of democracy and wish for peace and stability in Myanmar. Additionally, observers from 14 foreign embassies and 139 international election observers personally came to Myanmar to observe the election. Moreover, 215 journalists from 61 international media organizations and 1,177 journalists from 52 domestic media outlets also covered the election, which was conducted with transparency by the State. Their observation and remarks are sufficient evidence to recognize the dignified election. Everybody knows that countries, including world powers, recognize Phase I of the election as a free, transparent and fair one. Mr Deng Xijun, Special Envoy for Asian Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, commented, “We have seen that the staff members carrying out their duties in the election are performing their work correctly, accurately, and well. We have observed that Phase I of the current election has proceeded smoothly and peacefully.” Similarly, Belarusian Member of Parliament Mr Shpakouski Aliaksandr stated clearly, “We believe that elections are the only correct path in a legitimate political process, and that they represent fair competition in the formation of power and the convening of parliament.” All of these are evidence that reflect the recognition of the international community on the correct path towards Myanmar’s democratic development.Among the international community’s increasingly positive attitude towards Myanmar’s elections, indications of a shift in United States policy have also emerged as a notable development. In Real Clear Defence, a retired US Army colonel wrote that the upcoming election could become an opportunity to renegotiate and reshape US-Myanmar relations, which have been stalled for decades. In addition, US Secretary of State Rubio himself has stated that he would avoid making public judgements regarding the fairness of the electoral process and democratic values. As a result, it is now becoming apparent that the United States may be shifting away from its previous approach of sanctions and towards more pragmatic cooperation based on Myanmar’s strategic importance.Accordingly, no matter how terrorists threaten the people via social media platforms, the scenes from Phase I of the election have already proven that the people of Myanmar are firmly determined to shape their own destiny. On the morning of 28 December, the steps taken by citizens heading for polling stations were not merely simple walks. Every step they took was a historic one, clearly rejecting the path of terrorism and acts of destruction. Their historic steps demonstrated to the world their desire for peace, stability, and the rule of law.At present, Phase I of the election was successfully held on 28 December in 102 townships. This is just the beginning. Going forward, Phase II will continue to be held on 11 January 2026, in 100 townships, and Phase III will be held on 25 January in 63 townships. The entire population believes that a new Hluttaw will be convened, a new government will be able to be formed, and national development can continue, once the whole process is completed.Voting is not only a right of every citizen, but also a responsibility. The ink-stained little finger of each voter is a proud symbol of having contributed, a single brick and a single grain of sand, to democracy. Each ballot is a foundation stone upon which the nation’s future destiny will be built, and every step taken towards the polling station is undeniably a step towards a genuine, disciplined, and new democratic state. For these reasons, this article urges everyone not to relinquish their rights but to continue marching resolutely to the polling stations with firm and determined steps during the periods of the remaining Phases II and III of the election.gnlm
