BROUK's Misguided Legal Crusade Against ULA Leaders: Standing on the Wrong Side of History

Opinion

Global Arakan Network September 6, 2025

BROUK's Leader, Tun Khin (photocrd)

The recent move by the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK), led by activist Tun Khin, to petition an Argentine court to include United League of Arakan (ULA) leaders in a lawsuit concerning alleged human rights violations in Arakan is a misguided and dangerous escalation. This action, reported widely in recent news, seeks to expand a universal jurisdiction case initiated in 2019 to now target the ULA, accusing its leadership, including Major-General Twan Mrat Naing and Brigadier-General Nyo Twan Awng, of atrocity crimes.

While BROUK claims to champion justice for the Bangagya (Rohingya), this approach risks deepening divisions, undermining reconciliation, and inadvertently strengthening the very forces it claims to oppose. It is a step that threatens the fragile prospects for peace and cooperation in a region already scarred by decades of conflict.

The decision to drag ULA leaders into an international legal battle is not just a tactical error; it is a reckless act that could cement animosity between the Arakanese and Bangagya communities. The ULA, alongside its military wing, the Arakan Army (AA), has emerged as a significant force in Arakan, controlling substantial territories and advocating for the rights and self-determination of the region's people.

By targeting its leadership, BROUK is not only alienating a key stakeholder but also sowing seeds of distrust that could render communal reconciliation nearly impossible. The Arakanese and Bangagya, despite their historical tensions, share a common interest in rebuilding a region devastated by conflict, poverty, and displacement.

Legal actions like this, pursued thousands of miles away in Argentina, do little to address the on-the-ground realities and instead fuel perceptions of external interference. This move risks branding the Bangagya as adversaries in the eyes of those who might otherwise be partners in dialogue, creating a chasm that could take generations to bridge.

Significantly, the majority of Bangagya Muslims currently residing in Arakan are likely to oppose BROUK’s actions, as they recognize the harm this legal crusade inflicts on social cohesion and peaceful coexistence. These communities, living amidst the daily realities of Arakan’s complex socio-political landscape, understand that fostering harmony with their Arakanese neighbors is essential for their survival and well-being.

BROUK’s confrontational approach, initiated from afar, disregards the delicate balance local Bangagya communities strive to maintain. By antagonizing the ULA, which holds significant influence in the region, this move could jeopardize the safety and integration of Bangagya residents, further isolating them and undermining efforts to build a shared future based on mutual respect and cooperation.

ULA Leaders (photocrd)

Moreover, BROUK’s strategy undermines the urgent need for repatriation and humanitarian solutions for Bangagya refugees, many of whom languish in camps in Bangladesh. The safe and dignified return of these refugees to Arakan hinges on cooperation between all communities in the region, including the majority Arakanese. ULA is now the government of Arakan and it means showing aggressive actions toward the ULA leaders will only bring more barriers, not bridges in resolving the Bangagya crisis.

By casting the ULA as perpetrators in an international court, BROUK jeopardies hostility that could derail efforts to create a conducive environment for repatriation. The looming famine in Arakan, threatening millions regardless of ethnicity, demands unity, not division. Collaborative efforts to secure humanitarian aid, ensure equitable access to resources, and rebuild infrastructure are critical.

Yet, BROUK’s actions threaten to isolate the Bangagya further, making it harder for them to integrate into a future Arakan where mutual respect and coexistence are possible. This legal gambit, rather than fostering justice, may exacerbate the suffering of the very people it claims to protect.

Perhaps most alarmingly, BROUK’s approach plays into the hands of the Myanmar military junta, a regime universally condemned for its atrocities. The junta, led by figures like Min Aung Hlaing, already faces international arrest warrants for crimes against the Bangagya, as confirmed by the Argentine court’s February 2025 ruling.

By expanding the list of accused to include ULA leaders—and previously, controversially, Aung San Suu Kyi—BROUK dilutes the focus on the junta’s culpability. This misstep risks providing the military regime with a propaganda victory, allowing it to portray itself as a victim of overreach alongside other groups like the ULA, which has actively opposed the junta’s rule.

The junta has long exploited ethnic divisions to maintain power, and BROUK’s actions inadvertently bolster this strategy. Furthermore, by framing the ULA as complicit in international crimes, BROUK risks alienating Myanmar’s broader pro-democracy movement, which sees the ULA as an ally against military oppression. This could lead to the Bangagya being unfairly labeled as “national traitors” by those who support the ULA’s fight against the junta, further isolating them politically and socially.

The inclusion of Aung San Suu Kyi in the original 2019 petition already raised eyebrows, given her limited control over the military and her imprisonment since the 2021 coup. BROUK’s subsequent request to reconsider her inclusion, as reported by The Diplomat, was dismissed by the Argentine court, highlighting the organization’s struggle to align its legal strategy with Myanmar’s complex political reality.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Leader of NLD (photocrd)

Repeating this pattern with the ULA leaders suggests a lack of strategic foresight. The ULA, unlike the junta, has shown a willingness to engage in governance and address humanitarian challenges in Arakan, even if its record is not without flaws. BROUK’s petition, as noted in recent reports, relies on testimonies and evidence of alleged AA atrocities, but pursuing these through a distant court under universal jurisdiction risks oversimplifying a multifaceted conflict. It ignores the need for local accountability mechanisms and dialogue that could address grievances more effectively.

In pursuing this lawsuit, BROUK is burning bridges that the Bangagya, Arakanese, and the international community will need to cross for a sustainable resolution. The path to justice for the Bangagya lies not in alienating potential allies like the ULA but in fostering inclusive governance and accountability within Arakan itself.

By choosing confrontation over collaboration, BROUK risks standing on the wrong side of history, jeopardizing enmity where partnership is desperately needed. The Bangagya deserve justice, but this approach threatens to prolong their struggle rather than resolve it.