The Hague’s Genocide Verdict Won’t Feed the Rohingya

Multilateral summits excel at a particular art: converting human suffering into impeccably drafted communiqués. On October 17, when foreign ministers from the 57 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) gather in Baghdad, they will have another prime opportunity to demonstrate this skill. Top of the moral agenda will be the Rohingya, whose ongoing plight under Myanmar's military rule has long served as a convenient cause for collective indignation.

The timing is acute. The International Court of Justice in The Hague is expected to deliver a landmark ruling later this year on whether Myanmar committed genocide. Should the judges rule against Naypyidaw, it would mark the first time in the tribunal's 80-year history that a sovereign state is held responsible for genocide. Such a verdict would offer immense moral satisfaction to international legalists. Yet moral satisfaction rarely feeds refugees or halts naval pushbacks.

While OIC member states backed the legal proceedings in The Hague, their commitment on the ground tells a distinctly different story. Near the Myanmar border, Bangladesh continues to host 1.2 million displaced Rohingya under crushing financial pressure. Meanwhile, international aid for these refugees has dwindled to as little as $7 per person per month. Desperation drives thousands to attempt perilous sea voyages, where last year one in every seven migrants was reported dead or missing.

The hypocrisy of regional diplomacy extends beyond passive neglect. Several governments that preach solidarity in Geneva and New York routinely turn away Rohingya fleeing by sea or forcibly repatriate them to Myanmar. Nor has the OIC shown much appetite for confronting non-member nations; when Indian authorities forced at least 40 Rohingya off a naval vessel into the Andaman Sea in 2025, according to Amnesty International, the silence from Islamic capitals was deafening.

A favorable ruling from The Hague will accomplish little if OIC states simply issue another round of performative applause. If the bloc's professed solidarity is to mean anything beyond diplomatic theatre, its members must back their words with economic leverage, refugee protection, and sustained funding for Bangladesh. Without concrete choices—such as ending forced returns and imposing targeted sanctions—the court’s verdict will remain nothing more than an academic exercise in accountability.

Written by Sandy van Dongen sandy.vandongen@alpineweekly.com