Aman Ullah

RB Article

June 8, 2016

"Everyone has the right to a nationality," and "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality." Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

The motion concerning the issue of citizenship scrutiny was put on record at the recent session of the Pyithu Hluttaw after the voting turned to be 154 votes for and 228 against, with 7 abstentions.

Daw Khin Saw Wai, an MP from Rakhine State, brought the motion before parliament stressing that her proposal was national, not regional. “The issue of citizenship scrutiny is a national concern, and it is not specific to Rakhine State alone,” she said.

In his discussion about the motion, U Aung Kyaw Zan of the Pauktaw constituency described the issue as unconnected with racial and religious matters as other people might have thought, putting the blame on illegal immigrants. He also called for the exercise of the Myanmar Citizenship Law 1892 in the scrutiny process, stressing that the law is up to standard.

Labour, Immigration and Population Union Minister U Thein Swe responded that the undertaking of citizenship scrutiny required security and stability. He pledged greater transparency in the scrutiny process to be conducted across the country on a national scale after the establishment of scrutiny committees at different levels in all states and regions. He called for collective cooperation in the process, which he said would present challenges. He proposed putting the issue on record, saying that the scrutiny process is included in his ministry’s 100-day plan.

Almost all of the MPs and many Rakhine political leaders of Arakan believe that the 1982 Citizenship Law is up to standard and try to use it against the Rohingya to make them illegal immigrants and stateless persons. While Daw Aung San Suu Kyi many time told that this law was unfair and any law relating to citizenship should be according to international standard and universal norms.

In true sense, the 1982 Citizenship Law is a pluralistic ignorance like the story ‘The Emperor's New Clothes’, a Danish fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen and first published in 1837. The story is about a situation where "no one believes, but everyone believes that everyone else believes. Or alternatively, everyone is ignorant to whether the Emperor has clothes on or not, but believes that everyone else is not ignorant.”

The story is like this, 

Many years ago there lived an emperor who cared only about his clothes and about showing them off. One day he heard from two swindlers that they could make the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position.

Being a bit nervous about whether he himself would be able to see the cloth, the emperor first sent two of his trusted men to see it. Of course, neither would admit that they could not see the cloth and so praised it. All the townspeople had also heard of the cloth and were interested to learn how stupid their neighbors were.

The emperor then allowed himself to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through town, never admitting that he was too unfit and stupid to see what he was wearing because he was afraid that the other people would think that he was stupid. 

Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said:

"But he has nothing on"! 

This was whispered from person to person until everyone in the crowd was shouting that the emperor had nothing on. The emperor heard it and felt that they were correct, but held his head high and finished the procession.

Today, the phrase "emperor's new clothes" has become an idiom about ‘logical fallacies’ or’ pluralistic ignorance’.

Although, under the Article 202 (a) of Ne Win’s 1974 Constitution clearly states that, “This Constitution is the basic law of all the laws of the State.” Ne Win enacted this citizenship law, which was contrary to his constitution of 1974. However he and his BSPP government did not enforced it during their term and set it as dead law. The USDP and Thein Sein’s Government intentionally try to use this dead law as a legal law against the Muslims of not only Arakan but also throughout country while this law is also contrary even to the 2008 Constitution.

We welcome the recent resolution of the Pyithu Hluttaw that put on record the issue of citizenship scrutiny. We hope and pray that the new Government will respect and try to take action in accordance with the United Nations Resolution issued shortly after the election in 2015, an attempt to forestall further bloodshed by providing a framework to secure peace and reconciliation in the Arakan state. 

According to that resolution, “The NLD government should immediately abolish the Rakhine Action Plan and end institutionalized discrimination against the Rohingya, including the denial of citizenship. It must hold accountable all those who commit human rights abuses, including inciting ethnic and religious intolerance and violence. In Arakan/Rakhine state the government must facilitate the safe, voluntary return of IDPs to their communities. Neighboring countries should offer protection and assistance to Rohingya asylum seekers. The international community must urge the new NLD government to develop a comprehensive reconciliation plan, including establishing a commission of inquiry into crimes committed against the Rohingya in Arakan/Rakhine state. The new government must demonstrably improve the welfare of ethnic and religious minorities and repeal laws and discriminatory practices that pose an existential threat to the Rohingya community.

A central component of the new government's reform process must include constitutional reform that addresses the needs of ethnic minorities, as well as the development of an independent judiciary as a means of safeguarding human rights and tackling the culture of impunity regarding past mass atrocity crimes.”

As a member of the United Nations, Burma is legally obliged to take action to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” 

Aman Ullah

RB Article

December 31, 2015

“Decolonization not only refers to the complete "removal of the domination of non-indigenous forces" within the geographical space and different institutions of the colonized, but it also refers to the "decolonizing of the mind" from the colonizer's ideas that made the colonized seem inferior.” Karl Hack (2008) 

Arakan with an area of about 20000 square miles was long famous and widely known to Arabs, Dutch, Portuguese, and British traders as centre of international trade and commerce. It is situated in the tri-border region between modern day – Burma, Bangladesh and India. Although it is made a part of Burma now, it had never been so in the past.

Culturally, socially, economically and politically the people of Arakan were independent for centuries. Chiefly for its geographic location, it had not only remained independent for e most part of history but also endeavored to expend its territory in the surrounding tracts whenever opportunity came. Completely cut off from Burma by high mountain range of Arakan Yoma, the peoples of Arakan neither drank from the same water with Burmans nor dependant on them for trade and commerce. Neither of a single river flows from Arakan to Burma nor Burma to Arakan.

Whatever relation Arakan maintained politically, geographically, culturally and historically with Bengal, history has proved beyond doubt the Bengal never had any aggressive design on Arakan. According to DGE Hall, a modern historian, ‘there was time to time Burmese and Mon interference before establishment Mrohoung by Narameik Hla in1433.’ And it was by the invasion and occupation of Burmese king, Bodawpaya, in 1784, Arkan’s history as an independent kingdom came to an end. After 40 years of Burmese rule the British colonialist annexed Arakan to a British India in the first Anglo-Burma war of 1824 and it remained under British administration till Burmese independence on January 4, 1948.

January 4 was marked in the history of Arakan as unfortunate day that has lost of the legitimate right to independence of the people of Arakan by transferring of their sovereignty to the so-called Independent Sovereign Republic, which was to be known as ‘Union of Burma’. It was a joint-stock company of old-colonialism with neo-colonialism, a joint venture between the British and the coalition of Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) that was to form Burma’s first independent government, to fabricate the artificial and false nationhood of ‘Burma’. And in this process the people of Arakan lost their right to independence, on account of these monstrous imperialists’ creation. This imperialist imposed administrative ‘unity’ or ‘nationality’ that has no legal validity under the Decolonization Law, and they cannot, legally deny the right to self-determination, and the right to separate legal existence of the people of Arakan.

Resolution 2625-XXV of the general Assembly of the United Nations that now constitutes a part of International Law regarding decolonization stated that “all colonial territories have ‘juridical status’ that is ‘separate’ and ‘distinct’ from the colonialist country, and ‘from their colonial territories’, and this separate juridical status remains as long as the people of each of this colonial territory have not yet exercised their right to self-determination.” The Britishers violated this principle of separate juridical status of colonial territories, when they transferred their legal ‘sovereignty’ over Arakan to the Burma Union.

Another fundamental principle is that a colonialist power has no sovereign right over a colonial territory, that it cannot transfer sovereignty to other power regarding territory that has also been trampled on. Sovereignty over a colonial territory resides with the people of that colony and not with the colonialist power. This has been stipulated in the UN Resonation 1514-XV. British’s transfer of ‘sovereignty’ over Arakan to Burma was therefore downright illegal. Britain has no sovereign power over Arakan. ‘Nemo dat quod non habet’, ‘No one gives what he does not have.’

The concept of ‘Union of Burma’, which was invented by the colonialists and based on the sanctity of the illegal boundaries of the colonial empire, was established by conquests. It is a state that is based on colonialist conquered territories without reference to the conquered peoples, their cultures, languages, histories, identities, and inalienable rights. Union Burma is thus admittedly a state based solely on British colonialism—without decolonization. M. Dillard, judge of the international Court of Justice, had stated that ‘it was the people who should determine the destiny of a territory and not the territory should determine the destiny of the people’. In the case of Arakan, the British conquered territory determined the destiny of the people of Arakan.

There can be no compromise between the concept of ‘Union of Burma’ and the principle of ‘decolonization’, because the one goes directly against the other. Decolonization requires ‘liquidation of all colonial empire’ with specific steps and definitive procedures, but Union of Burma exists on the principle of the total preservation of the territorial integrity of the previous colonial empire; an empire is not liquidated if its integrity is preserved. ‘Union of Burma’ is still an un-liquidated and un-decolonizes colonial empire with Burma replacing Britishers as the colonial masters.

In addition to these, there is no legality and judicial values of the Treaty on the transfer of ‘sovereignty’ between British and Burma signed on October 7, 1947, especially concerning the transfer of ‘sovereignty’ over Arakan to Burma.

Firstly, the glaring incompatibility of the Treaty with the decolonization principles of the UN, that had been imposed universally.

Secondly, this Treaty clearly violated the right to self-determination of the people of Arakan. 

Thirdly, the Treaty was neither signed by any representative of the people of Arakan nor given mandate from them. 

Fourthly, the power and authority of the people of Arakan was arbitrarily ignored in the Treaty.

Finally, the transfer took place without consulting the people of Arakn through plebiscite or referendum, and doing it outside all established procedures of the United Nations Decolonization Law and precedents set up by the International Court of Justice.

It is irony of the fate that the portion of time preceding Burmese independence was a very dark period for the people of Arakan. The people of Arakan hardly believe that the Burmans govern them; but they strongly feel that they are colonized. After being integrated into Burma the people of Arakan have been a part of unitary state of the Union of Burma during which time they have been subjected to brutal and inhuman treatment such as; human rights abuses, killings, rapes, ignorance, poverty and social injustice and have been subjected to virtual ethnic and cultural genocide.

Aman Ullah

RB Article

December 27, 2015

“The pain and loss of losing a loved one is the same for everyone; you don’t feel more or less if you’re a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Christian or a…” 

 Rev. John Iwohara (Venice Buddhist Temple)

A Thai court has sentenced two Myanmar migrants to death for murdering two British backpackers on a resort island last year. 

Delivering the verdict at a court on neighbouring Koh Samui, an unnamed judge said it found Win Zaw Htun and Zaw Lin, both 22, guilty of killing David Miller, 24, and raping then murdering Hannah Witheridege, 23, last year on the island of Koh Tao.

In its ruling, the court said that prosecutors had presented evidence from the crime scene and provided witness testimony that proved "without any doubt to the court" that the two men had killed Miller and raped Witheridge before murdering her "to cover up their wrongdoings." DNA evidence showed that the semen of both men was found inside Witheridge, the court said.

Miller and Witheridge's battered bodies were found Sept. 15, 2014, on the rocky shores of Koh Tao, an island in the Gulf of Thailand known for its white sand beaches and scuba diving. Autopsies showed that the young backpackers, who met on the island while staying at the same hotel, suffered severe head wounds and that Witheridge had been raped.

Following weeks of pressure to solve the case, the two migrants, who had entered Thailand illegally and were working on the island, were arrested on October 2, about two weeks after the murders.

The killings tarnished the image of Thailand's tourism industry, which was already struggling to recover after the army staged a coup just months earlier in May 2014. And from the arrests to the trial, the killings also raised serious questions about Thailand’s treatment of migrant workers. About 2.5 million people from Myanmar, work in Thailand, most as domestic servants or in low-skilled manual jobs such as construction, fisheries or the garment sector. Migrants are often abused and mistreated without the safeguard of rights held by Thai citizens.

From the start, the case raised questions about police conduct. Investigators faced a variety of criticism, starting with their failure to secure the crime scene, and then for releasing several names and pictures of suspects who turned out to be innocent.

After Britain's Foreign Office expressed concern to Thai authorities about the way the investigation was conducted, British police were allowed to observe the case assembled by their Thai counterparts.

Under intense pressure to solve the case, police carried out DNA tests on more than 200 people on Koh Tao. Police said the pair had confessed to the killings and that DNA samples linked them to the crimes. Both men later retracted their confessions, saying they had been coerced by the police. Police have denied the accusations.

Throughout the trial prosecutors insisted their evidence against the men was rock solid.

One of the defendants, Win Zaw Htun, also known as Wai Phyo, testified that he was tortured, beaten and threatened so he would confess. He told the court that police handcuffed him naked, took pictures of him, "kicked him in the back, punched him, slapped him, threatened to tie him to a rock and drop him in the sea," according to defense lawyer Nakhon Chompuchat.

Zaw Lin, the other defendant, testified that he was blindfolded, beaten on his chest and told he would be killed if he didn't admit to the charges, Nakhon said, adding, "He also said he was constantly suffocated by a plastic bag that was put over his head until he passed out."

As is customary in Thailand, where trials have no jury, a judge delivered the verdict and sentence and said the DNA tests by investigators were carried out to accepted standards and the DNA found on Witheridge matched that of the defendants.

In an emotional statement after the verdict, Miller's family said they had initial doubts about the investigation but found the evidence against the accused to be "absolutely overwhelming."

"Justice is what has been delivered today. We respect this court and its decision completely," said Michael Miller, the brother of David, reading from a statement beside his two parents.

The verdict and sentence follow an investigation and trial that triggered allegations of police incompetence, mishandling of evidence and torture of the suspects. Both later retracted their confessions saying they had been made under duress.

The long-awaited verdicts came after 21 days of witness hearings in a trial that began in July and ended in October. Allegations by defense lawyers of police incompetence and evidence mishandling dominated the trial.

Thailand's best known forensic scientist, Porntip Rojanasunand, testified that police had mishandled evidence, including the hoe the authorities say was the murder weapon. She tested the hoe and found that it contained DNA from two males — but not from the suspects.

Human Rights Watch called for the verdict to be reviewed in a "transparent and fair appeal process."

"In a trial where torture allegations by the two accused were left uninvestigated and DNA evidence was called into question by Thailand's most prominent forensic pathologist, both the verdict and these death sentences are profoundly disturbing," said Phil Robertson, the deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Asia division.

Defense lawyers had asked to retest crucial DNA samples taken from the bodies but authorities issued conflicting statements on DNA evidence and, at one point, said that it had been used up.

No independent re-testing of DNA evidence has been done in the case.

Following the announcement of the death sentence handed down by a Thai court, a wave of public protest came together in front of the Thai Embassy in Rangoon.

According to Hmu Zaw, a director of Myanmar President’s Office wrote in his Facebook post that, an appeal will be brought against the verdict and further efforts will be made diplomatically without harming Thailand’s sovereignty, independent judgment nor friendship and amity between the two governments and two peoples.

As for Ko Win Zaw Tun and Ko Zaw Lin, the director presented five steps to be taken in accord with the law and legal system of Thailand.

Appeals against the verdicts will be filed with the High Court. The sentences will be amended if the successful, the director wrote, adding that they must appeal within one month.

Committing to the first steps prior to appealing the sentences, the Lawyers Council of Thailand and the Myanmar Embassy and Myanmar Civil Society Organisations in Thailand will have coordination meetings. A 21-member legal committee provided by the Council is set to meet on 11 January, said the director. It is planned that an appeal will be sent to the Supreme Court of Thailand and the Privy Council of Thailand, if necessary, in the hope of further legal action, he added.

On his Facebook page, U Ye Htut, Union Minister for Information as well as presidential spokesperson, also wrote hoping the accused two are able to prove they are innocent of the murder during an appeal process after reviewing the evidences related to the case. The Union minister stated that the government will assist the appeal process in accordance with the law of Thailand while the Myanmar Embassy in Thailand will be in cooperation with Thailand-based Myanmar CSOs. 

As Win Zaw Tun and Zaw Lin are Rakhine ethnic, everybody in Arakan are very much concerned with their verdict and praying for them.

We also hope and pray for them to be able to prove that they are innocent of the murder during their appeal process after reviewing the evidences related to the case.

Kyaw Thura, a Burmese columnist, terms the trail as “a conspiracy of silence” in the opinion column of the Global New Light of Myanmar on December 25.

But what will we term the rape and murder case of Thi Da Htwe of Yanbye in southern Arakan State that was happened in 2012.

Ma Thi Da Htwe, a 26 year old Rakhine Buddhist woman, was the daughter of U Hla Tin and Daw Ma Mya of Tha Pri Chaung village of Kyauk Ni Maw Village Tract in Yanbe Township. She was disappeared on her way to her home from Kyauk Ni Maw at 5 pm on 28 June. She was found dead, with some marks of having met with a violent attack, at 9 am on 29 June on a bank of a dam between Kyauk Taran Village and Tha Pri Chaung village. Her body was brought to the hospital by the police on that day. After examining the body the doctor confirmed that she had been raped and killed by someone. An elderly man of the that village told that he had seen Htat Htat, Rafi and Lu Yu near the area of the occurrence in the evening of 28 June. All the three are hailed from Tha Pri Chaung village and are Muslims. They are Kaman Muslim not Rohingya. The police arrested them on 30 June and sent them to the Kyauk Pyu Jail. The Kyauk Pyu district court sentenced to Rafi(18) and Lu Yu (21) to death on 18 June. According to the government press, Htat Htat took his own life on 9 June.

‘Every accused of a crime is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and has the right to a fair trial, even if they cannot afford to hire their own attorney. The criminal justice system is there to protect the innocent and seek the truth’ it is a standard norm of the judicial system.

Now in this case, Ma Thida Htwe was found dead near her village on the morning of 29 May 2012 and assumed that she had been raped and killed by someone. There was no eye witness or no creditable circumstances evident available at that moment. The nature and time of the occurrence were also not so clear. Only an elderly gentle man of that village suspected to the three persons because he had seen Htat Htat, Rafi and Lu Yu near the spot on the evening of 28, not at the spot. They may be or may not be, it was not only suspected. It was a doubt. Everybody knows about who is the beneficiary of the doubt according to law. As far as the doctor’s report is concerned, how far confirmation of a doctor, from a village health clinic, has such qualification to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect kill or rape the victim! Did he have expertise or special knowledge of such serious crime? The doctor must be a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. 

The three suspects were arrested on 30 May and the District court sentenced the two of three suspects to death on 18 June—that is only within 19 days (14 working days). 

A crime is committed, it is reported, an investigation conducted and an arrest made (these may all occur in rapid sequence if the offense is committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer). 

This case was not like that. No one knows about what, how, when and why happened and who has committed. There was no single eye witness. No credible circumstance evident. Only one can assume that ought to be. These points ought to be carefully examined, in order to form a correct opinion. The first question ought to be, is the fact possible? If so, are there any circumstances which render it impossible? If the facts are impossible, the witness ought not to be credited.

According to the government press, Htat Htat took his life on 9 June. How did they believe that only a press statement is sufficient for relieving from a burden of responsibility? Where did their responsibility and accountability go to? His death body was not handed over to his close relatives. If he took his life by himself, why his body did not handed over to his family? How can he take his life in the jail so easily who was main accused of the case? Who is responsible for this, the police or the jail authority or the court or the government or any other else? 

Rafi and Lu yu were sentenced to death by the Kyauk Pyu District Court on 18 June within 20 days of their arrest. How the court can pass a judgment of a murder case within 20 days (14 working days) while there is no provision of speedy trial in the Burmese judicial system? How the judge can give a fair justice to them within a very short time? Did they get the right of justice in according article 21 (a) of the existing constitution of Burma, 2008? Did they get the right of defense and the right of appeal under law, which is a constitutional right of a citizen according to article 19 (c) of the existing constitution of Burma, 2008? If, in eyes of the court, they are not citizens of this country, why the court did not prove whether they are citizen or not before bringing them to trial for murder and rape cases? In a criminal trial there are many stages to do, such as, arrest, booking, arraignment, bail or detention, preliminary hearing, pre-trial motion, trail, sentencing, appeal etc... Was the court able to follow all the procedures of trail according to law at this short time? 

Aftermath of that case hundreds of Muslims have been killed, dozens of their villages were looted and burned, many have to flee to hastily constructed camps as IDPs, and unknown thousands have taken to sea as refugees. The population of IDP camps is now approaching 200,000, out of an estimated population of 10, 00,000 Muslims in Rakhine state. The UNHCR estimates that since June 2012, the violence has left more than 200 people dead and displaced about 200,000 more, mostly Muslims. Violence also has spread to other parts of Burma.

Since then, the Rohingya have been backed into a corner, their lives made so intolerable that tens of thousands have fled by sea, seeking safety and a sense of dignity elsewhere. Surviving the perilous journey to Bangladesh, Thailand or Malaysia is, too often, seen as the only way to finally be free from persecution. 

By Z. M. Babar (aka) Soe Raza

RB Article

November 17, 2015

Rohingya Issues May Remain Unsolved Under Daw Aung San Suu Kyi Led NLD Government Of Myanmar

PART I

Many Rohingya activists around the world congratulated and gave big applauses to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the chairperson of NLD for the landslide victory of her party in this historic General Election (GE) of Myanmar held on 8th Nov, 2015 under the ruling camouflaged military regime of U Thein Sein. According to international observers and media reports, there were some polling stations found with advanced casting of votes and irregularities in favor of USDP. On the other hand, the results of the contests were announced in delayed manner by U Tin Aye, the Union Election Commission (UEC) who was believed to be under high pressure of USDP leaders. There was no doubt about the irregularities, frauds attempted manipulation of votes by USDP supporters and its leaders in order to cheat the supporters of NLD and other opposition parties [1]. The credibility of this election should be below the normal standard and against international electoral procedures because it has removed or denied the rights of Rohingya MPs and themselves. Badly, the UEC was not an independent candidate or person with ultimate power to make a decision based on the results because he was appointed by State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) government of General Than Shwe on 11th March of 2010. Unfortunately, those who were once elected as the MPs of USDP from Rohingya Muslims population in the last elections that represented more than 1.3 million of indigenous and ethnic minorities in the country were recently denied of being eligible candidates based on various alleged falsifications and biased grounds [2, 3]. From the beginning, the credibility of 2015 GE of Myanmar itself was supposed to be questioned by so called world democratic communities and ASEAN members [4]. No strong words were seen except Mr. Charles Santiago, a Malaysian MP of Penang and the Chairman of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights who has expressed very logical argument saying , “In any other country the rejection of an entire class of candidates would render the contest itself undemocratic [5].” 

We could remark that UEC has broken his silence suddenly to show his tremendous support towards USDP by saying that he wanted the USDP to win in the poll but fairly, we know the term ‘fairly’ was aimed here only to protect him from public outcry and violation against articles (d & e of clause 4) of Chapter II Under Section 450 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, also known as Union Election Commission Law [6, 7]. It was a clear indication of biased UEC which was quietly ignored by USDP. International observers believed that the election held on Nov 8 of 2015 was run freely and smoothly in technical manner while most of them forgot or feared to emphasize and highlight that this was the only election in the history of Burma (Myanmar) where no Muslim candidates from Rohingya were allowed to participate, only 28 other Muslim candidates or less than 0.5% of 6,074 candidates (5,130 Buddhists and 903 Christians) were allowed as the part of sham election policy. On the other hand, Muslim residents from upper Burma, Yangon and lower Burma were allowed to cast votes as well mainly in favor of the ruling party. 

According to authentic historical documentations, there was no record of election held in Burma or Myanmar without participation of Rohingya candidates including the last GE held in Nov 10 of 2010 [8-10] after 47 years of military coup of General Ne Win [11]. It doesn’t look strange and new to me to hear the denial of Rohingyas’ rights to vote because it didn’t happened suddenly in one day but it is a subsequent result and proof of continuous, systematic marginalization of major group of Muslim population (Rohingya) of Myanmar, genocidal and ethnic cleansing schemes of radical Buddhists including institutionalized elements (969 and Ma Ba Tha). ‘Voting or not voting is the sole right of a citizen but not the government itself where democracy is truly practiced. It was the political parties that are the losers and failures in nation building processes, what they called as ‘road map to democracy’. 

All Rohingya are indigenous to their motherland (Arakan) and they were the citizens of the Union of Burma (today’s Republic of the Union of Myanmar) before and after independence. Believe it or not!, many thousands of Rohingya were already citizens of the land by birth and nature (For instance, my grandfather who was born in 1868 and died in 1982 on the soil of Arakan) before British colonization came to exist allover Burma from 1886 when U Thein Sein (born on April 20, 1945) and / or our National Hero, Thakin Aung San (born on February 13, 1915) were not born even and there was no such name called Myanmar in those days (Myanmar is a fabricated , concocted, manipulated name given in 1989 aiming to wipe off the history of British colonization) [12, 13]. 

Changing uniforms, changing name of the country (Burma/ Union of Burma/ SLORC / SPDC/ Myanmar and current Republic of the Union of Myanmar) and places (Arakan to Rakhine / Rangoon- Rangon to Yangon etc.,) are being used by the military Generals of Burma as a tactic to make international community confuse. Nothing is believed to be stable and reliable in my birth country except the military power which is still alive at any cost. As we know, real democracy could never be established and sustained by camouflaging and ambushing like a ‘Fox wearing the skin of a goat’. Moreover, it is undeniable that most of the Rohingya had remained loyal and sincere to the Union of Burma after the independence in 1948 as genuine and bona-fide citizens in serving the people and nation [14-19] while today’s Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung were recognized as the Mayu Frontier District [18, 20] (also known as Western Frontier) which was started to administer officially on 1st May of 1961 by Rohingya Muslim majority.

PART II 

Even though majority of the parliamentary seats would be occupied by NLD members if there would be a smooth power transition in March of 2016 but obviously 25% of seats reserved for unelected military officials according to 2008 military-drawn constitution, blocking Daw Suu Kyi from becoming the President by her much talked ‘rule of law’, appointing of key ministers for the new government, management of natural resources and salaries for civil services, corruption and bribery, amendment of selected constitutional laws [21-24], some international treaties with neighbors which were signed against the will and interest of people such as Shwe Gas pipeline (800 km long) from Kyaukpyu of Arakan to Kunming of Yunnan province of China, mining and displacement of localities [25-29], the ongoing ethnic conflicts in border regions, refugee issues of Rohingya (internationally) with host countries like Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Japan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, U.S.A and Canada etc., Karen Refugees in Thailand, the most importantly again is of Rohingya Citizenship issue (internally) would remain as the most challenging tasks for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi led future NDL government from 2016 [30-33]. 

Simply, we could predict that the dark side of the Moon and the failure or the very bright future of the so called Myanmar democracy Icon (also called as the Lady of Destiny) is going to evolve soon depending on how she could handle these mentioned problems above. She may regret or proud to be the failed /supreme leader of NLD respectively when it comes true. Leave the Rohingya issues aside for a while, just think about the recently documented reports on the corruption of $31 billion (about two-third of the country’s GDP of 2014) from jades trade alone by military owned companies [34] which was an alarmingly dangerous and negative step towards building of a prosperous, transparent and balanced society [35]. It might be 1% of corruption that media has explored under tight security measures and strong media censorship. Nobody knows exactly how many secret businesses do elite military officials of Nay Pyi Taw and their families have. 

For decades, Myanmar was being isolated from the outside world due to its records of human rights violations until last GE of 2010. According to Global Finance Magazine reports, Myanmar was ranked in 23rd position (but richest among the 23 most poorest countries in the world) based on GDP per capita of $1490.53 in 2013 [36], its total revenue was just a bit higher than Burkina Faso of Africa which has indicated that it was still crawling with hundreds of various socioeconomic problems which should be mainly considered as man-made catastrophes as mentioned earlier. Is Myanmar really a poor country? Not at all if we look at natural resources, scopes of socioeconomic developments, ethnic diversity, and cultural heritages and so on. 

The progress of a country’s economy also depend on many other factors (besides natural ones) such as population and its growth rate, mortality rate, healthcare facilities, quality of life, life expectancy, literacy rate, research and developments, skills development programs, empowering of women, cultural diversity, freedom of religious practice and media, equal treatment, rehabilitation processes for poor and homeless people, protection of environment, food safety and security, tourisms and tertiary businesses (manufacturing facilities). To achieve these goals, Myanmar needs to suspend all the restrictions imposed on those people within the territory of Myanmar who are allegedly being considered as the aliens or illegal immigrants. A truly diverse cultural society and prosperous economy could be rebuilt if all walks of people including Rohingya of Myanmar are being treated equally without looking at color of skin, racial background, religious practice, gender, social status, creed and caste. It is not impossible but it would be difficult for any kind of NLD government to ban Ma Ba Tha and 969 or any other radical Buddhist extremists groups that incite violence, instill hatred through religious speeches, leaflets, books, journals and electronic media. 

There is no problem that doesn’t have a solution but sometimes it takes time or very hard to find the correct one. Among all the ethnic problems of Myanmar, Rohingya issue is supposed to be the easiest and simplest one because Rohingya have been struggling for getting their ethnic and citizenship rights back with equal treatments and full dignity only while coexisting with Buddhist societies within the Union. Of course, it is critical and sensitive issue for Daw Suu Kyi when she may think of about the interest of her fellow Buddhists majority, Ma Ba Tha, 969 and some of her own party seniors who are opposing to bring any truly changed environment of democracy and human rights. By giving back the rights of Rohingya, Myanmar would become more powerful, prosperous, transparent, harmonious and industrious. There is no democratic country or society in the world that could reach peace and stability of it by keeping an entire class of human race aside from the share of happiness and sorrow. It is the majority of Myanmar Buddhist public who need to have a positive mindset to understand the wrong preaching of Buddhist monks and leaders who are always against the peaceful coexistence, communal harmony, multicultural society, democratic development, natural diversity and cultural pluralism. As we all believe that all Buddhists are not terrorists or 969 and Ma Ba Tha, there are many monks and general public in Myanmar like Dr Maung Zarni [37] in exile who believes in universal human rights and support the progress of democracy, Rohingya human rights and Buddhism in real sense.

PART III 

In high school level, it is taught that Myanmar was known as the ‘Golden Land’ which is not because of having a plenty of natural resources but it is because of the hospitality of its people. Till today, you may find the same gesture of hospitality in any reception desk of hotels in Yangon, the former capital of Myanmar where you may also notice that Muslims and all other religious people are sitting, walking, eating and talking together friendly. If you want to see the different image of hospitality of Buddhist society, you should be able to visit Arakan interdependently where you could explore Rohingya concentration camps or Open Prison Ghettos in 21st century led by Nazism-influenced ultra-nationalist Buddhist Rakhines, the result of Face of Buddhist Terror [38, 39], U Thein Sein of USDP, Dr Aye Maung of RNDP, the hidden genocide [40] of Rohingya as Aljazeera reported, the entirely burned habitats of Rohingya and finally few hundreds of fake Rakhine IDPs whom were being used by Thein Sein as the sham IDPs either to justify the institutionalized policy of Rohingya genocide or create confusion for international / UN agencies [21, 37, 41-43]. 

Unfortunately, the door of Myanmar for international agencies, independent reporters, academicians and researchers are very limited and/or restricted starting from the exit of Sittway airport. Now, you could easily imagine how far Myanmar democracy has reached after even five years of so called quasi-civilian government of Thein Sein. Surprisingly, Myanmar is opened for you to go any other part of the country where no oppressed Muslims or any ethnic minorities exist [44]. Thus, if anyone believes that Myanmar has geared up to reach the peak of its real democratic change, then it is a very obvious mistake [45]. If NLD comes to power, there would be no different for military seniors including the soft-spoken Liar, U Thein Sein to enjoy a handsome monthly salary of Kyats in millions according to constitution drawn in 2008. 

Look! By the current one-month equivalent salary (which is ≈12 million Kyats) of U Thein Sein, a 4-membered family of 100 garment workers of Myanmar could survive in Yangon for one month easily if we assume a basic monthly salary of 30,000 Kyats (10,000 Kyats higher than government fixed minimum wage) per worker [46]. If we consider the out flow of pensions and salary payments for five years like this, how many workers or poor Buddhists and Muslims in Myanmar could survive? This is like a dream or imagination for those country leaders who used to take only a nominal salary to survive like H.E Mr Jose Mujica (monthly of $1,250 only), the president of Uruguay [47] and the Honorable Prime Minister of People’s Republic of Bangladesh [48] (monthly salary of only $754). Myanmar’s GDP is not equal to Canada or America; therefore Myanmar leaders should not take such huge amount of salary for the sake of country’s socioeconomic developments. If NLD could not address these issues of misusing the wealth of the country after coming to power, the real problems would still remain there firmly in its place. I’m not objecting here about the pension of any civil servant who has gone for retirement but it is about the amount of pension or salary they fixed for themselves through legislation. Does any professor or teacher in Myanmar get this type of pension or salary? If so, all the wealth of the country would be melted and finished only in settling pensions and salary [49, 50]. This is one of the more critical issues than Rohingyas’. There are hundreds of internal issues which are more sensitive and important for NLD to solve.

PART IV 

Again, I personally believe that Rohingya do not need to regret on disenfranchising them from right to vote because the denial of Rohingya ethnic identity and even their historic existence of time immemorial was already placed there by both ruling USDP and opposition party leaders ahead of this GE election systematically or in genocidal way of several discriminatory policies. Frankly, it is meaningless for Rohingyas to regret on missing the voting right and candidacy in Nov 8 GE of 2015 whilst their ethnic, citizenship and other basic rights are not restored unconditionally. Alternatively, it looks good to me that any GE election with no Rohingya Muslim voters and representatives in Myanmar is a clear proof of failure in road map to democracy or reconciliation processes or it is the proof of clear ethnic cleansing and genocidal policy of Myanmar leaders whom the world powers often appreciated and praised mistakenly. 

Having the right to vote and being elected as MPs could not solve the core problems of Rohingya unless they are being recognized as the genuine citizens of the same land where Thakin Aung San was born. I have many Rakhine and Dyna (Chakam) friends with I stayed and played together during my school and university lives in Myanmar who are very generous, friendly and brotherly. We have illegal immigrants issue of Rakhines including Dr Aye Maung (a Bengali Rakhine) whom were brought from Bangladesh to the lands of original Rohingyas and Rakhines by successive military regimes including U Thein Sein in order to create violence, destabilize peace and security of the regions, bring demographic change and control Rohingya population. There are hopes for reconciliation, creating friendly environment between Rohingya and Rakhines if NLD could take solid steps on the issue. I believe that my Rakhine and Dyna (Chakma) friends in Arakan and throughout Myanmar who have been living with us together side by side are not the followers of 969 and Ma Ba Tha. If they are so, they shouldn’t be blamed for the time being because they were being misled by radical and ultra-nationalists Rakhines and Buddhists monks. 

The so called ‘Mother Daw Suu’, ‘Myanmar democracy Icon’ or Nobel Laureate has always been keeping silent on the statelessness, human rights violation and ethnic cleansing of Rohingya since the emergence of hidden and slow genocide in 3rd June of 2012 for which she bore the brunt of international criticisms [51]. It was good for Rohingya if she has only kept her mouth shut down but she didn’t. World communities including Rohingya must note that she has claimed to be a political leader only rather than a human right defender. She has also answered to media that she doesn’t know about this mass population (about 1.8 – 4 millions) of Muslim Rohingya and their citizenship status [52-55]. If she doesn’t really know, she shouldn’t be a political leader as well or she doesn’t belong to the Burma or Myanmar. She has also ignored the truth of Rohingya genocide like U Thein Sein there by just blaming on the growth of world Muslim power to justify the Rohingya ethnic cleansing [56]; it was indirectly indicating that the ongoing slow and hidden genocide of Rohingya should be continued even under her leadership. Rohingya are neither coward nor violent but they are the most peace loving people in Myanmar. I am not sure how long would Rohingya tolerate this ongoing slow genocide. One day, I am sure all their rights of Rohingya must be returned unconditionally. 

Although Daw Aung San Suu was born (on June 19 of 1945 in Yangon) of Myanmar but she has to play the same roles like Sonia Gandhi of India or Ali Khomeini of Iran because there is a law that blocks her for becoming the president. It is like treating Rohingya as illegal immigrants who cannot be citizens of Myanmar too. Has Daw Suu Kyi ever felt that how discriminatory the law it is which was enacted in 1982 to marginalize the entire Rohingya community? She is a Buddhist, Nobel Laureate and a political leader but what is the difference between her and Rohingya in terms of such discriminatory laws practiced. She has also forgotten about the support and contribution of Rohingya Muslims towards her party during 1990 GE, the election results were not only denied by the military dictators but she was also put under house arrest for more than 15 years. 

Recently, there are secret conversations and meetings between senior NLD leaders and military led USDP in order to reach a concrete deal which may include a number of terms and conditions including Rohingya ethnic identity and citizenship issue, benefits and facilities for retired or senior USPD members of military, appointment of key ministers in the cabinet, continuation of national and international treaties signed by USDP. If NDL could not accept all the terms and conditions placed by USDP, there would be a U-Turn rather than a straight away to the road map of democracy. Thus, the scopes for her to play may not be as vital ones as Sonia Ghandi and Ali Khomeini do. The internal policy of NLD leadership is going to change that may result in creation of unwanted situation within senior members of the party. Still there are a number of obstacles for her waiting among which the most dangerous one would be to sustain and remain in power effectively as the legitimate supreme leader of the State with continuous support of Buddhists majority including more than half a million [57] of monks led by Ma Ba Tha [58, 59], 969 terror groups [60, 61] and military officials (MPs). Any dissatisfaction to the powerful military may smash her leadership and long dream of establishing the rule of law. 

Factually, among all the ethnic issues of Burma, Rohingya issue is the simplest and easiest one because Rohingya are not separatists like Rakhines and other ethnic groups. If NLD could be able to handle ultra-nationalist Buddhists and monks, then it could be solved easily, just by restoration of their status and rights sincerely. It is not Daw Suu Kyi herself or her party members themselves that have been denying the truth of Rohingya intentionally but it seemed to be due to political interest of their own safety to stay in power and avoid criticism of Buddhists and radical clerics of monks. The Chairperson of NLD and its senior members knew the truth but they pretend to be unaware of it because they are either under political pressure of stuck on their stance politically. 

When you look at Myanmar’s education today, no school or university textbooks contain about Muslim (e.g., Rohingya, Kaman, Pathi) societies in Myanmar, Islam as a practicing religion in Myanmar, ethnic minorities of Myanmar; belief in communal harmony, cultural diversity, democracy and human rights; finally on building a corruption-free multicultural society for all concerned. I have still remembered two words that I have encountered in ‘Myanmar History’ throughout my entire school life (from Grade I to XI); one of them is ‘Kalar’ a derogatory word used by racist Buddhists usually in referring to Rohingyas as a black Indian descendant in appearance, why do Rohingya are being called as ‘Bengali’ today again?; and another word is ‘Mujaheedins’ to refer those Rohingya freedom fighters who had surrendered before and after forming Mayu Frontier District. Thus, it is utmost important for Daw Suu Kyi and her government to review all the educational syllabi including those in monasteries used to preach more than one million monks so that they could ensure that there are enough necessary information and guidance to promote communal harmony, mutual understanding, democracy, moral and ethical values of all religions found in Myanmar; and it must be ensured that there are no words of hatred, violence and disunity among different races and faiths within the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. 

Rohingya issues have been labeled as ‘internal affair of Myanmar’ for avoiding any interference. Today, the most adversely affected countries due to denial of Rohingyas’ ethnic identity and citizenship rights by U Thein Sein or NLD are international communities, particularly Bangladesh [62], Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia [18, 63, 64]. For ASEAN members that have been suffering from mass flow of Rohingya refugees, they need to change the terms and conditions of ‘non-interference’ policy of the body in order to adapt an action against the notorious and serious violation of international laws including universal human rights. If still NLD failed to address and solve the statelessness issues of Rohingya based on their ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds, then the last and final option should be to form an ally of all the concerned Rohingya host countries of the world to build a coalition force (like UN peacekeeping forces) in order to protect Rohingya from the slow and hidden ongoing genocide and prevent further Rohingya migration issues or refugee crises in the region. Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia and Thailand should play vital role as these countries alone bearing the burden of about 1 million of Rohingyas refugees excluding more than 100 thousands of Karen refugees in Thailand. 

Daw Aung San Suu led future NLD government may fail to restore the ethnic identity and citizenship status of Rohingya Muslims, rehabilitate all Rohingya IDPs to their original homes and villages if there would be no effective reconciliation processes, promotion of real democracy, independent international aid agencies, positive mindset of Buddhists towards their fellow Rohingya and other Muslims, prosperous economy free from corruption, textbooks in school that guide young generation for multicultural society like Malaysia, accountability held for those criminals who are behind the genocide of Rohingya and killing of hundreds of innocent Muslims in Meiktilla. 

References 

1. http://www.wsj.com/articles/myanmar-voters-cast-ballots-in-historic-elections-1446948112, The Wall Street Journal, 2015.

2. Meenakshi Ganguly, S.A.D., Burma Elections: Technical Success Does Not Equal Free and Fair. 2015 (Human Rights Watch).

3. Meenakshi Ganguly, S.A.D., Burma Elections: The Politics of Hate and Exclusion. 2015 (Human Rights Watch).

4. McLaughlin, T., For Myanmar's Muslims, little to cheer about historic election. Reuters, 2015.

5. Win, S., Muslim Candidates, Electorate Shut Out of Myanmar Election. Myanmar Now 2015.

6. Meenakshi Ganguly, S.A.D., Burma Elections: Biased Commission Undermines Polls. 2015 (Human Rights Watch).

7. http://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF3/l1b.pdf.

8. Martin, M.F., Burma's 2010 Elections: Implications of the New Constitution and Election Laws. 2010: DIANE Publishing.

9. Seekins, D.M., Myanmar in 2009: A New Political Era? 2010.

10. Nilsen, M. and S. Tønnesen, Political parties and peacebuilding in Myanmar. Peace Research Institute Oslo Policy Brief, 2013. 5: p. 2013.

11. Parnini, S.N., The crisis of the Rohingya as a Muslim minority in Myanmar and bilateral relations with Bangladesh. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 2013. 33(2): p. 281-297.

12. Buchanan, F., A comparative vocabulary of some of the languages spoken in the Burma Empire. Asiatic Researches. 1799. 5: 219-240 (http://www.rohingyamassacre.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/soasbulletinBurma64276.pdf).

13. Bahar, A., Racism to Rohingya in Burma. Arkan Monthly, 2012.

14. http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs3/Ethnic_Groups_in_Burma-ocr.pdf, 1994.

15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Burmese_Muslims

16. http://rohingyaamericansociety.blogspot.my/p/history-articles.html.

17. Min, S.A.H.U.K., http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs14/ARAKAN-%20Question_of_Rohingyas_Nationality-red.pdf. 2012.

18. NEMOTO, K., The Rohingya Issue: A Thorny Obstacle between Burma (Myanmar) and Bangladesh. http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs14/Kei_Nemoto-Rohingya.pdf, 2004.

19. Smith, M., The Muslim “Rohingya” of Burma. http://www.rohingya.org/portal/index.php/rohingya-library/26-rohingya-history/75-the-muslim-rohingya-of-burma.pdf, 2006.

20. Lwin, N.S., Making Rohingya Statelessness. http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/10/29/making-rohingya-statelessness/, 2012.

21. Gill, F.S., Human Rights and Statelessness: The Case Study of the Rohingya in Myanmar. 2015: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

22. Kipgen, N., Ethnic Nationalities and the Peace Process in Myanmar. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 2015. 82(2): p. 399-425.

23. ANNIA, K., Instrumental Role of United Nationalities Federal Council as an All-Inclusive Platform for the Ethnic Groups in Burma.

24. Cochran, C., Constitutional Secession. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/burma0508chronology.pdf, 2014.

25. Forsyth, T., Energy, governance and security in Thailand and Myanmar (Burma): a critical approach to environmental politics in the South. Environmental Politics, 2015. 24(1): p. 169-171.

26. Kulkarni, S.S. and H.S.K. Nathan, The elephant and the tiger: Energy security, geopolitics, and national strategy in China and India’s cross border gas pipelines. Energy Research & Social Science, 2016. 11: p. 183-194.

27. Len, C., China's 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Initiative, Energy Security and SLOC Access. Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India, 2015. 11(1): p. 1-18.

28. Myoe, M.A., Myanmar’s China Policy since 2011: Determinants and Directions. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 2015. 34(2): p. 21-54.

29. Tun, K., China-Myanmar: Toward a More Balanced and Better Neighborhood. Impact of China's Rise on the Mekong Region, 2015.

30. Aung-Thwin, M., Myanmar in 2013: Integration and the Challenge of Reform. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2014. 2014 (1): p. 203-223.

31. Gayeski, J., Stolen Land, Stolen Peace Land Grabs In Burma’s Ethnic States. America, 2014.

32. Robbins, M.A., Chinese Land Acquisitions: Developing A Strategic Foothold in Natural Resources. Strategic Informer: Student Publication of the Strategic Intelligence Society, 2015. 1(2): p. 3.

33. Zerrouk, E., 10 Development-forced land grabs and resistance in reforming Myanmar. Global Implications of Development, Disasters and Climate Change: Responses to Displacement from Asia Pacific, 2015: p. 174.

34. Kwok, K., Revealed: Myanmar’s US$31 billion jade mining industry and its 'ties to country's elite'. Global Witness & South China Morning Post, 2015.

35. Zarni, M., In the shadow of Letpadaung: Stories from Myanmar's largest Copper mine 2015 (http://www.maungzarni.net/2015/10/in-shadow-of-letpadaung-stories-from.html).

36. Tasch, B., The 23 poorest countries in the world. http://www.businessinsider.my/the-23-poorest-countries-in-the-world-2015-7/#eGXJKMQlAxRkxRGg.99. Global Finance Magazine, 2015.

37. Zarni, M. and A. Cowley, Slow-Burning Genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya, The. Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J., 2014. 23: p. 683.

38. Beech, H. and B. Meikhtila, 'The Face of Buddhist Terror'. Time Magazine, 2013. 1.

39. Gravers, M., Anti-Muslim Buddhist Nationalism in Burma and Sri Lanka: Religious Violence and Globalized Imaginaries of Endangered Identities. Contemporary Buddhism, 2015. 16(1): p. 1-27.

40. Otis, D., Burma’s ‘hidden genocide’: A rare visit to Rohingya refugee camps. . The Star, 2013 (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/05/18/burma_cyclone_and_monsoon_could_unleash_a_flood_of_hate_between_buddhists_and_muslims.html).

41. Kipgen, N., Addressing the Rohingya Problem. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 2013: p. 0021909613505269.

42. Kyaw, N.N., Muslim Minorities In Transitional Societies Different Myanmar Muslim Groups’ Different Experiences In Transition.

43. Siddiqui, H., Muslim Identity and Demography in Arakan.

44. Simons, T.B.a.C., Burma’s Rohingya: the invisible people. http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2015/06/08/burma-rohingya-human-rights/. New Internationalist Magazine, 2015.

45. Spanjers, D.K.a.J., Flight Capital and Illicit Financial Flows to and from Myanmar: 1960-2013 Global Financial Integrity 2015 (http://www.gfintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Myanmar-Report-Final-1.pdf).

46. Burma, W.a.F.S.L.o., Farmland Confiscation and Labour Exploitation: The Critical Conditions of the Lives of the Toiling Mass. http://www.burmapartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Farmland-confiscation_WFSLBEng_28Oct10.pdf, 2011.

47. Michelle, The Poorest & Most Generous President in the World. News Bleat, 2012. http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/the-poorest-most-generous-president-in-the-world/.

48. http://www.paywizard.org/main/salary/vip-check/world-leaders-salaries.

49. Unknown, Speaker Shwe Mann Says President is Underpaid. The Irrawaddy News 2015. http://www.irrawaddy.org/election/news/speaker-shwe-mann-says-president-is-underpaid.

50. Zaw, H.N., Burma Govt Denies Report of Former Dictator’s Generous Pension. The Irrawaddy News, 2014. http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/burma-govt-denies-report-former-dictators-generous-pension.html.

51. Lee, R., A Politician, Not an Icon: Aung San Suu Kyi's Silence on Myanmar's Muslim Rohingya. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 2014. 25(3): p. 321-333.

52. Zarni, M., Aung San Suu Kyi and the world of Buddhist Islamophobia. Aljazeera, 2013(http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/aung-san-suu-kyi-world-buddhist-islamophobia-201311342243286354.html).

53. Haddock, Suu Kyi spokesman: “There is no Rohingya”. 2013(http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/05/suu-kyi-spokesman-there-is-no-rohingya/).

54. Akins, H., The Rohingya Are Suu Kyi's Litmus Test for a Legitimate Democracy. Huffington Post, 2015(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harrison-akins/rohingya-suu-kyi-test_b_8515810.html).

55. Unknown, Suu Kyi says Rohingya issue needs careful handling. Channel News Asia, 2015 (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/suu-kyi-says-rohingya/1922928.html).

56. Unknown, Aung San Suu Kyi Silent As Rohingya Crisis Worsens. Newsy World, 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJZvaho7X34)

57. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/how_many_burmese_monks_are_there.html, 2007.

58. Walton, M.J., Monks in Politics, Monks in the World: Buddhist Activism in Contemporary Myanmar. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 2015. 82(2): p. 507-530.

59. Walton, M.J. and S. Hayward, Contesting Buddhist narratives: democratization, nationalism, and communal violence in Myanmar. 2014: Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.

60. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23846632, BBC News, 2013.

61. http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/, TIME, 2013.

62. Petrasek, D., Through Rose-Coloured Glasses: UNHCR's Role in Monitoring the Safety of the Rohingya Refugees Returning to Burma. Human Rights and Forced Displacement, 2000. 4(1): p. 114-136.

63. Ahmed, I., The Rohingyas: From stateless to refugee. Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2009.

64. Ullah, A.A., Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh: Historical exclusions and contemporary marginalization. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 2011. 9(2): p. 139-161.

By Dr. Habib Siddiqui

RB Article

November 1, 2015

The Genocide Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948 and entered into force in 1951. It declares that genocide is a crime under international law. It imposes affirmative legal obligations on states to prevent genocide from occurring and to punish perpetrators of genocide. 

Article II of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;

b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

As the Genocide Convention recognizes, “genocide is a crime . . . contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world,” the prohibition of the crime of genocide has become an undeniable part of customary international law. Furthermore, it is a principle binding on all states even if they have not consented to the obligation by ratifying the Genocide Convention.

Genocide is not a term to be used lightly. Genocide is the ultimate denial of the right to existence of an entire group of human beings. As such, it is the quintessential human rights crime because it denies its victims’ very humanity. 

Recently, the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School has published a legal analysis for Fortify Rights, a human rights organization based in Southeast Asia, on the subject of genocide. The 78-page legal analysis — Persecution of the Rohingya Muslims: Is Genocide Occurring in Myanmar’s Rakhine State? A Legal Analysis— draws on nearly three years of research and documentation provided to the Lowenstein Clinic by Fortify Rights, including eyewitness testimonies, internal government documents as well as UN data, reports, and information. 

It is worth noting here that the publication is the first to apply the law of genocide to the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar. The legal analysis reads, “The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group in Rakhine State, which occupies the western coast of Myanmar. An estimated one million Rohingya live in Rakhine State, primarily in the northern townships. Since the government passed the 1982 Citizenship Act, Rohingya have been denied equal access to citizenship. Rohingya have also been subjected to grave human rights abuses at the hands of the Myanmar authorities, security forces, police, and local Rakhines (the Buddhist majority population in Rakhine State). These actors have perpetrated violence against Rohingya, claiming thousands of lives. Hundreds more Rohingya have been the victims of torture, arbitrary detention, rape, and other forms of serious physical and mental harm. Whether confined to the three townships in northern Rakhine State or to one of dozens of internally displaced persons camps throughout the state, Rohingya have been deprived of freedom of movement and access to food, clean drinking water, sanitation, medical care, work opportunities, and education.”

It continues, “This legal analysis assesses whether the abuses of Rohingya Muslims’ human rights in Myanmar’s Rakhine State amount to genocide. Part I presents a detailed historical account of the situation of the Rohingya since Myanmar’s independence. Part II applies the law of genocide to the treatment of Rohingya in Rakhine State. This Part considers three questions: First, do Rohingya constitute a protected group under the definition of genocide? Second, do the acts perpetrated against Rohingya fall into the categories enumerated in the Genocide Convention? Third, does the requisite “intent to destroy” Rohingya exist? This analysis concludes that Rohingya constitute a protected group and that the group has suffered enumerated acts. Although the analysis does not support a definitive answer to the third question, the information the Lowenstein Clinic has considered, assuming it is credible and comprehensive and accurately reflects the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar, provides a strong foundation from which to infer genocidal intent by security forces, government officials, local Rakhine, and others. Thus, this paper finds persuasive evidence that the crime of genocide has been committed against Rohingya Muslims. The legal analysis highlights the urgent need for a full and independent investigation and heightened protection for Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar’s Rakhine State.”

In light of the findings, Fortify Rights said the United Nations must immediately establish a Commission of Inquiry into widespread and systematic human rights violations in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, including into whether the crime of genocide has occurred. 

“Allegations of genocide should not be taken lightly,” said Matthew Smith, Executive Director of Fortify Rights. “Rohingya face existential threats, and their situation is worsening. Domestic remedies have failed. It’s time for the international community to act.”

The government of Myanmar has openly attempted to prevent Rohingya births, in policy and legislation. It denies freedom of movement to more than 1 million Rohingya, and at least 140,000 internally displaced Rohingya are confined to more than 60 internment camps throughout Rakhine State. The government is responsible for denying Rohingya access to adequate humanitarian aid, sanitation, and food, and these abuses have led to avoidable deaths. Authorities have effectively forced Rohingya to take deadly journeys by sea, particularly since 2012, knowing the risks of death they face in doing so. 

“The plan of the government is to finish our people, to kill our people, but they cannot kill us all by the bullet,” a Rohingya man, 52, told Fortify Rights. “What they can do is deny us food and medicine, and if we don’t die, then we’ll opt to leave the country. [In these cases] the government has used a different option to kill the people. We must understand that.”

The Lowenstein Clinic identifies specific state actors—including the Myanmar Army, the Police Force, and the now-disbanded NaSaKa—as responsible for acts that could constitute genocide. It also exposes links between perpetrators and the central government in Naypyidaw. 

Fortify Rights and the Lowenstein Clinic called on the UN Human Rights Council to urgently adopt a resolution mandating an international Commission of Inquiry to fully assess the totality of the situation in Rakhine State, including human rights violations against Rohingya Muslims as well as Rakhine Buddhists. A Commission should objectively evaluate the facts, identify responsible perpetrators, and provide clear recommendations for action to effectively address and prevent further abuses in Rakhine State, Fortify Rights said. 

Operationally, a commission should collate existing UN data, hold hearings, interview victims, survivors, government officials, political operatives, leaders of the Buddhist sangha, and others in Myanmar and Southeast Asia. 

The UN Human Rights Council, Security Council, General Assembly, Secretary General, and Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights all have authority to establish commissions of inquiry. Examples of such commissions exist throughout the world. Most recently, the UN established inquiries into serious human rights violations in Libya, the occupied Palestinian territory, Syria, North Korea, Sri Lanka, and the Central African Republic.

“The UN should truly put human rights up front in Myanmar,” said Matthew Smith, referring to the UN Secretary General’s Human Rights Up Front initiative—an effort to prevent and respond to large-scale violations of human rights. “UN member states should stop tolerating these abuses and take action.”

As a keen observer of the Rohingya crisis for more than a decade, I am not surprised with either the findings of the Fortify Rights or the conclusion of the legal experts of the prestigious Yale Law School. The question of genocide of the Rohingya people has come up a few times in various conferences, especially since 2012 when they, rightly considered the most persecuted people on earth, are targeted for extermination in a national project in the Buddhist majority Myanmar. 

Seven months ago (March 30, 2015) I had the privilege to deliver a lecture at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and share the podium with Professor John Ciorciari discussing the same subject “Is genocide unfolding in Myanmar?” 

Following a trip in March of this year in the Rakhine state of Myanmar, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum staff believed that ‘conditions are ripe for genocide’ of Rohingyas. 

Nearly two years ago, at the First International Rohingya Conference in the USA, “Stop Genocide and Restore Rohingya’s Citizenship Rights in Myanmar,” held at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, the experts, which included Dr. Greg Stanton, a foremost authority on genocide, concurred that the Rohingyas were victims of genocide. For the last two years, the Genocide Watch has also been arguing that Rohingyas are facing genocide. 

On October 21, 2015 the U.S. lawmakers expressed deep concerns about Burma’s backsliding on human rights and commitment to democratization at a hearing by the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Repression and disenfranchisement of the Rohingya along with the military’s constitutionally guaranteed 25% of parliamentary seats means this election will not be free or fair, before even a single vote is cast. United to End Genocide President Tom Andrews was a featured witness, testifying before the Subcommittee warning of ongoing hate campaigns and abuses that put the country at risk of future mass atrocities and even genocide.

Professor Penny Green of Queen Mary University, UK has also issued a dire warning, “Myanmar’s Rohingya are being slowly annihilated through sporadic massacres, mass flight, systematic weakening and denial of identity. A genocidal process is underway in Myanmar and if it follows the path outlined in our report, it is yet to be completed. It can be stopped but not without confronting the fact that it is, indeed, a genocide.” 

The International State Crime Initiative (ISCI) at Queen Mary University of London, based on an 18-month investigation, has recently found “compelling evidence” that Rohingya face “mass annihilation” by the government of Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) and that a genocide has been taking place for three decades. Myanmar’s Rohingya minority population is in “the final stages of a genocidal process” comparable to that in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and Rwanda in the 1990s, and attacks against them are planned at the highest levels of government, according to this new report from the British research institute. The 106-page report includes evidence from leaked government documents and detailed accounts from witnesses about the severe lack of food and employment opportunities; difficulties trying to obtain health care; and discrimination and violence from Buddhist monks and non-Muslim villagers.

“You don’t need to engage in mass killing to obliterate an ethnic group. You can do it by other means,” says Professor Penny Green, a professor of law and globalization at Queen Mary University of London and lead researcher of the report who spent four months on the ground in Rakhine as part of her research. Green and her team of researchers were denied access to northern Rakhine state by the government. “You can make life so intolerable that they leave, and those remaining have no agency and are effectively in detention camps,” says Green. “You create a very fragmented diaspora around the world.” 

“It’s really important to construct genocide as a social process, because if we don’t, we can never intervene before mass killing takes place,” Penny Green told Newsweek. She added that the elections “reinforce the elimination of the Rohingya from the political realm of responsibility of Myanmar.”

The Rohingya are now two steps away from all-out genocide, having already been subjected to four stages: stigmatization, harassment, isolation and systematic weakening, according to the ISCI. There is evidence that the remaining two stages—extermination and “symbolic enactment,” or erasing the group from Myanmar’s history—are already well underway, says Green. The systematic weakening of the group has been so successful that the Rohingya’s rights have been “effectively destroyed” and “those who can, flee, while those who remain endure the barest of lives,” the report says.

The ISCI report also criticizes the international community for its lack of action.

It goes without saying that the UNSC and the international community have to take up the matter of genocide of the Rohingya people immediately failing which it must bear the responsibility for not stopping the crime.