Guest contributor
Linn Thant
Myanmar is approaching a defining moment in its modern history. More than five years after the military seized power in February 2021, the country remains trapped in a devastating conflict marked by airstrikes against civilians, mass displacement, food insecurity and widespread destruction of public infrastructure.
Yet the central question is no longer simply whether the military can retain power through force. It is whether a military institution that has repeatedly failed to establish political legitimacy, national reconciliation and lasting stability can continue to impose its authority on a population demanding a different political future.
Three interconnected developments deserve particular attention: the forthcoming judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Gambia v. Myanmar genocide case on November 19; the expanding international accountability process concerning Senior General Min Aung Hlaing; and the emergence of the Steering Council for the Emergence of a Federal Democratic Union (SCEF) as a framework for political and military coordination among resistance forces.
Together, these developments raise a fundamental question: can Myanmar move beyond military domination towards a federal democratic union founded on national equality, civilian authority and the rights of all its people?
November 19: A Defining Moment for International Justice
On November 19, the International Court of Justice in The Hague will deliver its final judgment in The Gambia v. Myanmar, concerning alleged violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention against the Rohingya population.
The case, initiated by The Gambia in 2019 with the support of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, concerns allegations arising particularly from the Myanmar military’s 2017 operations in northern Rakhine State.
More than 700,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh following those operations, amid reports of killings, sexual violence, village destruction and forced displacement.
The ICJ proceedings concern the international legal responsibility of Myanmar as a State, rather than the individual criminal responsibility of military commanders.
Nevertheless, the judgment could have significant legal and political implications for the military leadership.
For the Rohingya, it represents a long-awaited opportunity for international judicial recognition of the atrocities they have endured.
For Myanmar, it presents a broader challenge: whether a future democratic political order can be built upon justice, equal citizenship and the protection of every community.
The Rohingya crisis cannot be separated from Myanmar’s wider struggle for democracy and federalism.
A sustainable political transition must address historical persecution, exclusion and denial of rights, alongside the longstanding grievances of other ethnic nationalities.
Justice for the Rohingya must be part of a broader commitment to justice for all the peoples of Myanmar.
International accountability: The case against Min Aung Hlaing
The forthcoming ICJ judgment is part of a wider international accountability process.
On November 27, 2024, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced an application for an arrest warrant against Min Aung Hlaing concerning alleged crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution of the Rohingya.
The application remains subject to judicial consideration and should not be confused with an arrest warrant formally issued by the Court.
The ICJ and ICC proceedings are legally distinct. The ICJ examines Myanmar’s responsibility as a State under the Genocide Convention, while the ICC addresses individual criminal responsibility.
Together, however, these proceedings demonstrate that military authority does not place political or military leaders beyond international legal scrutiny.
For victims, accountability is not merely a diplomatic exercise. It is about recognition, justice and ending generations of impunity.
The principle is clear: no political authority or military command should stand above international law.
Military violence and Myanmar’s humanitarian catastrophe
The military’s continued reliance on air power has become one of the most devastating characteristics of the conflict.
Across Myanmar, civilians face airstrikes, artillery attacks, displacement and the destruction of homes, schools, hospitals and places of refuge.
The reported airstrike in Kyauktaw Township, Rakhine State, on September 28, illustrates the continuing vulnerability of civilian communities.
Such incidents require independent investigation, with those responsible for unlawful attacks held accountable under international law.
The humanitarian consequences are immense. The United Nations’ 2026 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan estimated that more than 16 million people would require humanitarian assistance and protection during the year.
A July 2026 update from the U.N. estimated nearly 3.8 million internally displaced people.
Conflict, economic collapse, natural disasters and restricted humanitarian access have further intensified the crisis.
Particularly concerning is the shortage of assistance reaching communities in areas administered or controlled by the National Unity Government (NUG), SCEF-affiliated forces, ethnic resistance organizations and local civilian administrations.
Cross-border humanitarian assistance and locally led delivery mechanisms are essential for reaching communities where conventional aid routes are inaccessible or restricted.
Local civil society organizations, ethnic humanitarian networks, religious institutions and volunteers continue to provide essential services under extremely difficult conditions. However, their capacity cannot replace the scale of international support required.
Humanitarian assistance must be delivered according to need, regardless of which administration exercises control over a particular territory.
A displaced child should never be denied food or medical assistance because of the political status of the place where that child lives.
Humanitarian access must not become a political bargaining instrument.
SCEF: Building a framework for federal democratic coordination
Against this background, the establishment of the Steering Council for the Emergence of a Federal Democratic Union (SCEF) on March 30 represents an important institutional development within Myanmar’s resistance movement.
SCEF was formed as a political and military coalition intended to strengthen coordination, collective leadership and decision-making among pro-democracy resistance forces.
Its institutional framework is organized around three pillars: states, federal units and ethnic resistance organizations; the people; and women.
Its stated political objectives include ending military involvement in politics, establishing civilian control over the armed forces, abolishing the 2008 Constitution and developing a new federal democratic constitution through inclusive political agreement.
The significance of SCEF lies in the challenge it seeks to address: how can Myanmar’s diverse resistance forces coordinate their activities while recognizing national equality and the right to self-determination?
Since its establishment, SCEF has pursued engagement with resistance organizations and international diplomatic circles.
In August, Reuters reported contacts involving SCEF and diplomatic representatives from Thailand and the Philippines concerning Myanmar’s conflict and possible political engagement.
However, international recognition, effective representation and a durable negotiating framework remain challenges.
SCEF’s success will ultimately depend on its ability to maintain political trust, strengthen accountable institutions and demonstrate that federal democracy can become a workable system of governance rather than simply a political aspiration.
Battlefield developments: Military setbacks and political challenges
Myanmar’s military landscape has changed substantially since 2021.
Ethnic resistance organizations and People’s Defence Forces have established control or influence over numerous towns and rural areas.
Military units have suffered casualties, lost positions and experienced instances of capture and surrender.
These developments have created opportunities for resistance forces to expand local administration and establish alternative public services.
Nevertheless, the situation remains fluid. Military counteroffensives, renewed recruitment through conscription, external support for the military and coordination challenges facing resistance forces continue to shape the conflict.
It would therefore be premature to assume that military defeat is inevitable or that the territorial balance has been settled.
The more important question is whether battlefield developments can be translated into sustainable political and administrative arrangements.
Territorial control is a military condition. Legitimate governance is a political achievement.
For the NUG, SCEF and ethnic resistance organizations, military coordination must contribute to civilian protection, accountable administration and an inclusive federal transition.
Military advances alone cannot guarantee a democratic future.
Beyond military victory: A federal democratic union
Myanmar’s future cannot be secured simply by replacing one centralized authority with another.
The country’s ethnic diversity, historical grievances and longstanding demands for equality require a political settlement that recognizes the right of nationalities to participate meaningfully in determining their own affairs.
A federal democratic union must guarantee national equality, meaningful self-determination, civilian supremacy over armed forces, independent institutions, fundamental rights and inclusive political participation.
It must also establish a credible framework for transitional justice and national reconciliation.
The NUG, SCEF, ethnic resistance organizations and other democratic forces face a historic responsibility to demonstrate that their proposed political alternative can protect diversity, resolve disagreements democratically and provide essential services.
This commitment must include the Rohingya, whose historical exclusion, persecution and statelessness remain among Myanmar’s most serious unresolved political challenges.
A federal democratic transition cannot be complete if any community continues to face discrimination or denial of fundamental rights.
Without equality and justice for all, Myanmar risks reproducing the same structures of exclusion that have fuelled decades of conflict.
The International community must move beyond statements
The international community has already expressed its position through various diplomatic and legal mechanisms, including U.N. Security Council Resolution 2669, adopted on December 21, 2022.
The resolution called for an immediate end to violence, the release of arbitrarily detained prisoners, humanitarian access and an inclusive political process.
It also reaffirmed the importance of democratic institutions, human rights and the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus.
Yet the fundamental concerns identified in the resolution remain unresolved.
Myanmar needs more than diplomatic expressions of concern. It requires a coherent international approach built around four priorities.
First, civilian protection.
International efforts must prioritize preventing attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure while supporting independent investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law.
Second, humanitarian assistance.
Cross-border and locally led humanitarian delivery mechanisms must be strengthened to reach vulnerable populations, including those living in territories outside military control.
Third, international accountability.
The ICJ judgment on November 19 should be treated as a major milestone in addressing alleged genocide against the Rohingya.
International legal proceedings must remain independent, and their findings and legal implications must be respected.
Fourth, meaningful political engagement.
Regional diplomacy must move beyond approaches that treat ceasefires as sufficient solutions while leaving the underlying causes of conflict unresolved.
A ceasefire can protect civilians and create space for political dialogue. However, it cannot substitute for justice, political equality or institutional transformation.
Myanmar’s humanitarian emergency and political transition are inseparable. Sustainable peace requires addressing the political structures and inequalities that have made prolonged conflict possible.
Conclusion: A historic responsibility beyond the battlefield
Myanmar stands at a crossroads.
The forthcoming ICJ judgment, the international accountability process concerning Min Aung Hlaing, continuing battlefield developments and the emergence of SCEF are all part of a broader historical transition.
For the Rohingya, November 19 represents an important moment in their pursuit of justice.
For the military leadership, it brings further international legal scrutiny.
For Myanmar as a whole, it presents an opportunity to confront the consequences of decades of discrimination, military domination and impunity.
Yet the country’s future will not be determined by judicial decisions, weapons, territorial maps or political declarations alone.
It will depend on whether Myanmar can move from coercion to consent, from military domination to civilian authority, and from ethnic exclusion to a genuinely federal democratic union.
For SCEF, the NUG and Myanmar’s diverse democratic and ethnic forces, the historic responsibility is to transform political and military coordination into accountable governance, inclusive institutions and meaningful protection for all civilians.
For the international community, the responsibility is to ensure that justice and humanitarian protection are not sacrificed to geopolitical interests.
Nearly four million displaced people and millions facing humanitarian hardship cannot remain statistics in international reports. Their lives, rights and aspirations must be at the centre of every political decision.
Myanmar’s unfinished struggle is ultimately not just about who holds power. It is about whether power can finally become accountable to the people.
The future of Myanmar must be defined not by the power of weapons, but by the rights, dignity and aspirations of its people.
Linn Thant is the Prague-based Representative of the National Unity Government (NUG) of Myanmar and a former democracy activist. He writes on Myanmar affairs, geopolitics, democracy and international relations.
DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that does not reflect DVB editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]
