Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of Myanmar's National League for Democracy, is visiting the US now but her trip has come under domestic criticism as she failed to speak up for nearly 800,000 Rohingya Muslims living in the country. 

Since May of this year, Myanmar has witnessed an escalation of simmering tensions between two different groups of people in Rakhine state. The violence between the Rakhines (Arakans) and Rohingyas has led to the deaths of 88 people, as of August 22, and the displacement of thousands of others. Unofficial reports, however, put the death toll in the hundreds. 

The immediate cause of the violence was a consequence of the rape and murder of a Buddhist-Arakan woman on May 28 by some Rohingyas. This was followed by the retaliatory killing of 10 Rohingyas by ethnic Rakhines on June 3. It must be noted that the tensions between these two groups have existed for the past several decades.

Questions have been asked as to why little has been done to resolve the conflict and if there is a possibility of a permanent solution. Much blame has been targeted squarely at both the Myanmese government and the opposition.

As the international community is promoting various national interests in this fledgling democracy, sectarian violence such as this has not been given serious attention, especially by the Western powers.

While Human Rights Watch criticized the Myanmese government for failing to prevent the initial unrest, nations such as Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Malaysia criticized alleged discrimination toward the Rohingya Muslims because of their religious beliefs.

The sensitivity of the issue has silenced many from discussing it publicly. 

Even Suu Kyi, the internationally acclaimed human rights champion, has made only brief comments by emphasizing the need for establishing a proper citizenship law to address the problem.

The root of the problem begins with the nomenclature itself. Although they call themselves Rohingyas, the Myanmese government calls them illegal Bengali migrants from neighboring Bangladesh.

Since the governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh have both refused to accept them as citizens, the Rohingyas automatically became stateless people under international law. 

Myanmar President Thein Sein suggested that the United Nations Refugee Agency should consider resettling the Rohingyas to other countries. Although such a proposal may sound ideal, there are challenges to its implementation.

For example, will there be nations willing to welcome and embrace about 1 million Rohingyas? Moreover, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Chief, Antonio Guterres, has rejected the idea of resettlement. Even if the agency reconsiders the case, do the UNHCR offices in Myanmar and Bangladesh have adequate resources to process such a large number of refugees?

One possible solution for the governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh is to reach an amicable arrangement to integrate the Rohingya population into their respective societies. Currently, there are approximately 800,000 Rohingyas inside Myanmar and another 300,000 of them in Bangladesh.

Similar to the first, this proposition has its own challenges. Will the indigenous Rakhines accept Rohingyas as their fellow citizens and live peacefully alongside them? Will the Bangladesh government be willing to offer citizenship to the Rohingyas, which it presently denies?

Another possible solution is that Myanmar could amend its 1982 citizenship law to pave the way for the Rohingyas to apply for citizenship. In addition, Myanmar and Bangladesh need to secure their porous international borders to prevent illegal movements.

None of the above suggested policies are simple and easy to achieve. Despite the challenges and difficulties, the problem of the Rohingyas cannot be ignored for too long. Without addressing the crux of the issue, the May incident could possibly be one of a series of events that will trigger greater consequences.

Before a solution is achieved, international institutions such as the UN and the ASEAN must put pressure on the Myanmese government to resolve the problem. The conundrum needs to be addressed holistically rather than inciting hatred along religious or racial divides.

The author is a researcher on policies of South and Southeast Asia, especially Myanmar, and general secretary of the US-based Kuki International Forum. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Sources Here:

UNITED NATIONS, September 21 -- After Aung San Suu Kyi met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday morning, a floor below a throng of media and even Ambassadors gathered. There was a smattering of applause as Aung San Suu Kyi walked from the elevator to the adjacent rostrums at the stakeout. 

ASSK, as many here call her, was in the past a UN staff member, and now an icon. But still more messy questions exist, such as her silence on the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar, or Burma, as some here call it. 

Ban Ki-moon's summary of their meeting did not mention the issue; nor did ASSK or the questions Ban's spokesman selected. Yes, ASSK is in context a rare UN good news or success story. But particularly for that reason, questions of the stateless Rohingya who suffer religious prejudice in majority Buddhist Myanmar as Muslim should not be swept under the rug. Watch this site. 

Footnote: In the crowd awaiting ASSK was the Permanent Representative of New Zealand, with his cell phone out to take a photo. Such is the star power of ASSK. Then, just after the stakeout, a meeting of the Latin American grouping CELAC was suspended, with "no consensus" after a Paraguay arrival. But that's another story - watch this site.

Sources Here:

Introduction 

It was exactly after Jumaa, Muslim-Weekly-collective Prayer, while like every other Fridays, I was sitting on my computer desk and doing customary activities, one of my face book friends messaged me that one man was shot dead in Maungdaw by the police. Who could have ever thought that that incident would take the whole of Rohingyas’ freedom, security and peace away? 

I remained unconcerned (as seriously concerned as now I am) about the incident as thought that it was a minor problem and will soon be settled. The next day when I rang to my home, he was explaining me the whole incident that police open fired the Rohingya Muslims people while they were on their way to other Mosque for congressional prayer as they missed it in the Central Mosque. From that point, the sectarian violence has erupted the whole of Arakan between the two sister community Rohingya and Rakhines (Moghs) burning each other’s homes, destroying properties and killing innocent people. It is confirmed that the violence has got its pregnancy from the Taunggoke massacres; still one community is blaming the other. Whatever the reason and whoever is liable for the violence it is undeniable that the Muslim minorities of Rohingyas are passing their moments in deadliest situation while the Rakhines are being guarded and secured by the Government forces. 

Whereabouts is not known 

The last time I had conversation with him was two days before they were taken to an unknown location. I did not enjoy the last time phone conversation with him as if some fear was in each mind. I recognized this. That doubt was growing in my mind from that very time. Till 16/06/2012, they have attended two three meeting as village prominent leaders in sector head quarter organized by col. of sector HQ in concern of the current situation. Every time I talked with him on the phone it seemed to me that he knows something wrong will be going to befall on the whole community. 

On 15/072012 the combined force including army and NaSaKa raided the villages and tortured every one young, old alike leaving all into the condition of partial or total disability. At that time they were preparing for Juma prayer at home as it was not allowed by authority to collectively perform Juma and were lucky enough to escape from being captured leaving house full of women and children whom were later driven out from the houses for checking against the family list and questioning by the combined forces and gathered in school like chickens threatening very inhumanly. The family list was confiscated and returned after one month. This was a close shape indeed. 

On 11/07/2012 the shop line in front of the house was destroyed and looted the goods by the combined gang of army, NaSaKa and local Rakhines. No attack was made to the family members at that time. Still no one was aware of that the family was on the target. On 16th of June they were invited for the meeting as usual together with village chairman after which they still not return to their dearest ones. 

Again on 25th of June the village was second time raided and 24 innocent people were arrested and tortured. Six people including one woman were later released on the same day after severely tortured. Their beard were burnt and tortured till bleeding from the mouths and noses making them life long suffering and disability. The other elderly man was punched on the face making him blind because eye ball has come out of the spot. Another child was wounded in shooting. 

“They (combined force of Army,NaSaKa and Mogh) set fire on my beards and at the same time punched me over my faces till I got bleeding from nose and mouth” 

(One of the victims) 

Making the nights in the open-flooded-farm land 

The military camped in the village school for 5 days and always took their regular patrol along road. Every adult are making their nights in flooded farm land in the fear of arrest and tortured, leaving children, mothers and sisters in the home defenseless and helpless. This is what the situation demanded. During the raids some jumped into the tidy creek and died due to strong flow of current. Some managed to get ashore after two three hours voyage in the dark cloudy night. During the raids they (combined forces) took away all the valuables found on their way. Cattles and Goats of Rohingya Muslims were slaughtered and celebrated as good dishes while those of the Rakhines were safeguarded. The human rights violation against the Rohingyas was immeasurable and grievous. 

“I jumped into the tidy creek in dark cloudy night and after ride of several hours I managed to ashore by the Grace of ALLAH at last.” (One of the victims) 

The situation of people especially children and elderly who were caged in the villages was very critical and are dying the everyday due to the starvation and lack of medical care. No one can out for food and no one work for money as the curfew is imposed only for Rohingyas. While Rohingya children are starving to death Rakhines are celebrating with full bundle of foods looted from Rohingyas shops and homes, and donation from international communities. At the time of writing this article Rakhines Moghs are selling 50 kgs of rice bag with 50,000 Kyat (Myanmar Currency) taking advantage of the situation the curfew being imposed on Rohingyas. All the Mosques are locked from the concerned authority barring the Muslims from praying during the Holy Month of Ramadan. 

To be continued…………

RB News Desk.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s plate seems to be full. She had fought for years for democracy against the military junta. Vindicated, she entered Burma’s parliament to build a coalition by representing her party, the National Democratic League (NLD), after winning a by-election. She tended to a steady stream of foreign dignitaries who visited Burma right after the military government granted her freedom. Then for the first time in years she set foot outside Burma to visit foreign countries and open paths for diplomatic relationships.

While all this was going on, there was trouble brewing at home – an ethnic clash between the Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslims.

On June 2nd, in the Western state of Rakhina ethnic Buddhists killed as many as ten Rohingya Muslims, in retaliation for the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman by three Muslim men. The events that followed saw scores of burnt houses, killings, and Rohingya Muslims fleeing into neighboring Bangladesh.

The ethnic divide between the Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslims is troubling. The Rohingyas, particularly, are caught in a political, economic, and social limbo between Bangladesh and Burma. There are about 26,000 Rohingya Muslims living in Bangladesh, 22,000 with legal refugee status. The future of the rest is unknown if and when Burma decides to grant legal refugees a resident status. For now, the 26,000 Rohingya Muslims continue to live in a squalid condition in Bangladesh.

For most part of her adult life Ms. Suu Kyi stood for human rights. Can she resolve the long-standing ethnic tension in Burma, which requires a unity and solidarity among the politicians, the religious leaders, and the military leaders?

A coalition of Thein Sein’s government and Ms. Suu Kyi’s party should try to engage with their Bangladeshi counterpart to discuss the future of the refugees and find a way to transform “reckless optimism” and “healthy skepticism” into achievable solutions to the ethnic crisis.

Engaging the Association of South Asian Nations (ASEAN) to handle this crisis could become a crucial part of Ms. Suu Kyi’s democratic campaign against human rights violations. So far, ASEAN’s policy of addressing the human rights issue remains as a “principle of non-interference in domestic affairs.” ASEAN nations have done little to address human rights violation of an estimated 1 million Rohingya Muslims.

Its charter on human rights issues remains tacit. In recognizing Burma’s ethnic strife, Ms. Suu Kyi has noted the need to repair this ongoing problem; however, she has also indicated that the ethnic problem “should not be allowed to get in the way of restoring democracy.”

The ethnic crisis in Burma deserves a concerted effort from Thein Sein’s government and Ms. Suu Kyi’s party as part of the democratic reform in Burma. Democratic reform in Burma requires a solution to the ethnic crisis that has engulfed the country for years. Her engagement with the political and religious leaders of the Buddhists of the Rakhina State and the Rohingya Muslims to work out a permanent solution to this decades-long crisis could be paramount. She could also urge the foreign leaders to cooperate with ASEAN through bi-lateral engagements. They will be unlikely to ignore her. 

Sources Here :

Its Buddhist majority might see fit to rally behind Aung San Suu Kyi for greater democratic rights while it continues to persecute other groups.

anmar's pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi has extolled Buddhism for allowing her a sense of inner freedom during her 15 years of house arrest. She's also said that Buddhist precepts can guide her country's democratic transition, encouraging reconciliation with the military instead of anger and revenge.

But the more nationalistic face of this Buddhist tradition, brought into focus by recent violence directed against Rohingya Muslims in the western state of Rakhine, could yet derail democratic reforms in Myanmar (also known as Burma). 

In fact, Suu Kyi has a Buddhism problem, specifically the chauvinism and xenophobia of Burma's Theravada Buddhist culture, which encourages a sense of racial and religious superiority among majority ethnic Burmese Buddhists (60% of the population) at the expense of ethnic and religious minorities. The resulting tensions could leave the country politically fragmented and strengthen the military's hand just as it has been forced to loosen its grip. 

This is why Derek Mitchell, the first U.S. ambassador to Burma in 22 years, was right in August to call the fate of the ethnic nationalities the country's "defining challenge." It is also why this issue should be on the top of the agenda this week when Suu Kyi comes to Washington to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. So far, Suu Kyi's response to treatment of the stateless Rohingya Muslims in Burma has been disappointing. 

The anti-Rohingya violence, which took place in June, led to scores of deaths, the burning of settlements and a refugee exodus of 90,000 people into neighboring Bangladesh. There, more than 200,000 refugees from Burma still languish in makeshift camps from the last anti-Rohingya pogrom 20 years ago. According to the United Nations, the Rohingyas, who number about 800,000 worldwide, are one of the world's most persecuted minorities. 

They are subject to forced labor, extortion, police harassment, movement restrictions, land confiscation, a de facto one-child policy and limited access to jobs, education and healthcare. A 1982 Burmese law denies them citizenship, based on the presumption that they are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, even though many have lived in Burma for generations. There's also their darker skin color, which makes them "ugly as ogres" by comparison to the "fair and soft" complexion of native Burmese, as a Burmese consul general stated in 2009. 

Burmese President Thein Sein has said that the solution to the Rohingya problem is to put them into internal U.N.-administered camps, or to expel them. This proposal already has enhanced his popularity as a defender of the Buddhist faith, with monks taking to the streets in support. 

But other minorities have been put-upon by Buddhist nationalism too, which views them as threats to "the land, the race and the religion." Many of these groups, such as the Karen, the Shan, the Mon and the Kachin, have been in a state of rebellion off and on against the central government since Burma gained independence in 1948. 

Buddhism played a key role in undermining the military's grip on power. Opposition of monks to the regime, which boiled over in 2007's Saffron Revolution, posed a significant challenge to the military's popular legitimacy by depicting it as an enemy of Buddha sasana, or righteous moral rule. To deflect that challenge, the government has played the race card, largely through propaganda stressing that Buddhism is the religion of "true Burmese" and that the health and purity of a uniquely Burmese form of Buddhism are at risk from "outside" contamination. 

Although this strategy wasn't successful enough to fend off assaults on the military's legitimacy, it was effective at feeding Buddhist chauvinism and insecurity. The result has been a rising tide of nationalism in which the Buddhist majority might rally behind Suu Kyi and her monastic allies for greater democratic rights, but still sees other groups in a subordinate and often racist light. 

As the violence against the Rohingyas played out, the newly liberated Internet lit up with racist invective. Using a pejorative for the darker-skinned Muslims, one commenter declared, "We should kill all the Kalars in Burma or banish them, otherwise Buddhism will cease to exist." A nationalist group set up a Facebook page entitled "Kalar Beheading Gang," which attracted 600 "likes" by mid-June. Meanwhile, monks in Rakhine state distributed pamphlets urging Buddhists not to associate with Rohingyas. 

In Europe in June to receive her belated Nobel Peace Prize as the crisis peaked, Suu Kyi seemed at a loss to respond. Asked whether the Rohingya should be treated as Burmese citizens, she answered, "I do not know," followed by an equivocating statement about citizenship laws and the need for border vigilance. Neither she nor her National League for Democracy party denounced the attacks or the racist vitriol that followed them. NLD spokesman Nyan Win simply said: "The Rohingya are not our citizens." 

This response left many Burma-watchers disheartened. But Maung Zarni, a Burmese research fellow at the London School of Economics, explained: "Politically, Aung San Suu Kyi has absolutely nothing to gain from opening her mouth on this. She is no longer a political dissident trying to stick to her principles. She's a politician, and her eyes are fixed on the prize, which is the 2015 majority Buddhist vote." 

Suu Kyi has since established minority rights as a priority, citing it in July in her first speech in Parliament, though without mentioning the Rohingya specifically. 

A failure to manage ethnic and religious tensions long held in check by military authoritarianism invites dark scenarios. In some assessments, Burma could fragment, a la Yugoslavia. The specter of "disorder," which the military has historically used to justify its heavy-handedness, could lead it to slow the pace of reform or even roll it back. In 1962, minority unrest, significantly provoked by the establishment of Buddhism as the state religion, set the stage for the coup that led to 50 years of military misrule and international isolation. 

Suu Kyi wrote in a 1985 academic monograph that in the Burmese "racial psyche," Buddhism "represents the perfected philosophy. It therefore follows that there [is] no need to either develop it further or to consider other philosophies." In her bid to forge a sense of national identity for all Burmese, that cultural obduracy is not working in Suu Kyi's favor. 

William McGowan is author of several books, including "Only Man Is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka.

Sources Here:

By Flavia Krause-Jackson and Daniel Ten Kate

Seamstress Thida Htwe was walking home from her tailoring work on a remote Myanmar road in late May when attackers took the 27-year-old by knife point to a forest where they raped her, slit her throat, and took her gold jewelry before dumping her body in the mangrove trees.

Local Burmese, including Buddhist monks, distributed incendiary pamphlets about the crime, and allegations quickly spread among the Buddhist majority in Rakhine state that Rohingya Muslims were to blame, according to New York-based Human Rights Watch. The group based its report on the incident and its aftermath, which United Nations officials confirmed, on 57 interviews with both Rohingya and Burmese.

Six days later, as three Rohingya suspects sat in jail, a Buddhist mob stopped a bus in a nearby town and killed 10 Muslim men on board. Local police and soldiers watched without intervening, according to Human Rights Watch and UN officials. Within a week, President Thein Sein declared a state of emergency to quell riots that have killed 88 people and left villages in ruins.

The ethnic strife is complicating Myanmar’s evolving ties with the U.S. and Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, as authorities struggle with how to treat the Rohingya, a minority that’s denied citizenship in Myanmar and faces persecution in Asia similar to that of other stateless Muslim groups such as the Mideast’s Kurds.

‘Serious Issue’

“It’s a serious issue that will hurt Myanmar’s reputation in the long term,” said Jim Della-Giacoma, Southeast Asia project director for the International Crisis Group, a Brussels- based policy research organization. “If Myanmar wants to enter the fold of modern and democratic states, it needs to grapple with this very fundamental issue to give equal rights to all ethnic groups, all religious groups.”

The Rohingya’s status leaves them trapped doing unskilled, poorly paid labor in one of the world’s poorest nations.

While Myanmar has begun to attract companies such asVisa Inc. (V) and Coca-Cola Co. (KO) after taking steps toward democracy, the Rohingya’s plight has flummoxed both Thein Sein and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Neither openly supports citizenship for the Rohingya, and Suu Kyi, though a democratic icon, skirted the issue on a European tour in June when she collected a Nobel Peace Prize she won during her 15 years under house arrest.

“They are very loath to discuss this issue directly, publicly and internationally,” Vijay Nambiar, the United Nations’ top adviser on Myanmar who visited the area immediately after the unrest broke out, said in an Aug. 6 interview in New York. “They see this very firmly as a refugee issue and an issue that the international community should solve and ‘take away these people.’”

The three Rohingya suspects were convicted for the rape and murder, according to Human Rights Watch. One reportedly committed suicide in prison, and the other two were sentenced to death, the rights group said in its report. In contrast, there have been no convictions in connection with the killing of the 10 Muslim men “despite hundreds of witnesses to the attack,” according to the report issued last month.

Human Rights Watch says about 800,000 Rohingya live in Myanmar. The country, formerly known as Burma, has a population of about 64 million, according to the International Monetary Fund. Many Burmese consider the Rohingya illegal migrants from what’s now Bangladesh, according to Human Rights Watch, which says their presence in modern-day Myanmar predates the start of British colonial rule in 1824.

‘Potentially Destabilizing’

Thein Sein said in June that the violence spread because of “instigations based on religion and racism” and called on all people to show “a sense of wisdom” and “loving kindness” to halt the fighting. In July, he urged the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to accept Rohingya as refugees and resettle them in third countries -- a suggestion the UNHCR promptly rejected.

Even as the nation undertakes economic and political reforms, the tension among its more than 100 ethnic groups “remains a potentially destabilizing factor,” the Asian Development Bank said in an Aug. 20 report, “Myanmar in Transition.”

Spurred by increased foreign investment and commodity sales, Myanmar’s economy may grow as much as 8 percent a year over the next decade as inflation remains low and the government increases trade ties with neighbors China and India, according to the bank.

While U.S. President Barack Obama last month eased some sanctions that were placed on Myanmar’s former military regime, he’s still considering whether to waive an import ban that Congress voted to extend this month, partly due to concern about the Rohingya.

The 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation condemned the “ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Myanmar government,” according to a statement released in May. The group, which includes Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, called for the Rohingya to have citizenship and offered humanitarian assistance for Rakhine state.

Myanmar has gone on the defensive, forming a 27-member commission on Aug. 17 that includes Muslim leaders to investigate the violence. Authorities moved to halt the ethnic fighting as quickly as possible, the government said in an Aug. 21 statement, saying the clashes occurred “between two communities within a State of Myanmar following a criminal act.”

“We will not accept any attempt to politically regionalize or internationalize this conflict as a religious issue,” the government said. “Such attempts will not contribute to finding solutions to the problem, but will only complicate the issue further.”

Bangladesh, Myanmar’s predominantly Muslim neighbor, has turned away Rohingya trying to reach safety in makeshift wooden boats. Human Rights Watch says about 200,000 Rohingya live in Bangladesh, a nation with a population of about 169 million, according to the IMF.

In one account chronicled by Human Rights Watch in its 56- page report this month, a Rohingya mother of six said her five- year-old daughter died of starvation after Bangladesh authorities denied entry three times and left her floating under a hot sun in the Bay of Bengal for four days.

“Why should we allow them to enter our country?” Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed told Al Jazeera television in a July 27 interview. “It is not our responsibility; it is theirs. Bangladesh is already an overpopulated country.”

Bangladesh had influxes of about 250,000 Rohingya refugees from Myanmar in 1978 and in the early 1990s, followed by repatriation efforts “that were not wholly voluntary,” the UN’s refugee agency said in a December report.

Ethnic violence against the Muslim minority there can be traced to the departure of the British after Burmese independence in 1948, the paper said.

A 1982 citizenship law grants nationality to people in ethnic groups that were present in the country before the British conquest. That law excludes the Rohingya, along with other minorities of Indian and Chinese descent that aren’t on a list of 135 official ethnic groups.

Myanmar’s recent moves to allow greater Internet freedom have exposed deep-seated hatred toward the Rohingya on social- media sites. Burmese bloggers refer to the Muslim minority as “dogs” or “black,” according to two UN human-rights officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

‘Absolute Denial’

When asked about Burmese attitudes toward the Rohingya, the UN’s Nambiar said, “There is a kind of scare that ‘these’ people from outside are coming over and taking over ‘our’ resources.”

“This has now taken a life of its own,” with “a large number of Burmese in absolute denial,” he said.

Thein Sein undoubtedly will face questions about the Rohingya when he makes his first appearance as president at the UN General Assembly in the final week of September, Nambiar said.

UN officials have told the president, directly and indirectly, “you have to take this head-on. It is incumbent on the government to do more to allay the fears, anxieties and suspicions,” he said.

Suu Kyi may be asked about the issue when she travels to Washington for a scheduled Sept. 19 ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda to accept the Congressional Gold Medal, which lawmakers awarded in 2008 while she was under house arrest in Myanmar. She is also scheduled to receive an award from the Atlantic Council in New York on Sept. 21. It will be her first return to the city where she worked at the UN Secretariat from 1969 to 1971.

Denied Citizenship

“We have to be very clear about what the laws of citizenship are and who are entitled to them,” Suu Kyi told reporters in Geneva on June 14. “All those who are entitled to citizenship should be treated as full citizens deserving all the rights that must be given to them.”

For a democracy icon who endured years in detention to protest an oppressive military regime, Suu Kyi’s equivocation on the Rohingya has drawn rare criticism.

“There are a lot of theories on why she is silent,” said John Sifton, director of Asia advocacy at Human Rights Watch. “The simplest and most plausible is that it does not win you friends.”

“I feel very sorry after reading the latest news. I don’t feel so much surprised as angry because I knew something like this would happen soon. One step leads to another. It is actually not so surprising for our country Myanmar, because neither people nor politicians have good understanding.” 

“The violence between Rakhines and Rohingyas in Arakan State is an example of how dictatorships all over the world use and rely on conflicts to stay in power. If all people were united, a military dictatorship could not survive. Division and enmity in the minds of the people only keep the military strong. Because of this, the military systematically uses division-and-rule policies on the grounds of nationality, religion, economic and education status, etc., to divide people, to keep the military ‘necessary’, relevant, and in power. So the Burmese people are kept separated in groups, each group for themselves, without unity or cooperation. Everybody lives in fear and distrust of the other. Everyone sees the other with a suspicious mind. With this pressure, the people are defeated. 

“The new freedom fighter groups were organized under a wrong system of a Burma nationalist policy. These national revolution organization systems are a mistake. They produce suspicions and tensions between Burmese and their fellow landsman. Furthermore, it is slowly destroying the meaning of ‘union’ until the ‘union mind’ will disappear. This is the situation that the Burmese military uses to keep the military system necessary and alive. 

The thirst for human rights 

“We haven’t had human rights or true democracy in our country for over fifty years. For the last fifty years and five months, an old man couldn’t get a taste of democracy, human rights, freedom, justice, or equality. Some people have not known any of these things their entire lives. This means we were so thirsty for human rights that we sometimes demanded them like fools. 

“We are living in the 21st century now, in a time of globalization, but in our country the principles of human rights and democracy are terribly broken. So our understandings of Dhamma, Metta, peace, and human rights are very rough, and we are beaten, arrested, killed, and destroyed. 

“Mr. Tomas Ojea Quintana, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, has said clearly that during the 2007 Saffron Revolution, crimes against humanity were committed. The illegal government acted against me with unjust laws and rules. I was sentenced by a judge to 68 years in prison. I lost my time, health, education, and freedom for the sake of my motherland. I spent nearly 4 years in prison. Everyone around the world knew that the people and monks were marching non-violently with love, Dhamma, and peace, and we didn’t have as much as a nail with us. But we were broken down very violently, beaten, shot, and killed. 

“The same people who were ruling Burma then are now presenting themselves to the world as a legal government. They show themselves to be honest, polite, and clear. But nothing has changed in Myanmar, even in this changing period. The neo-military dictatorship has exploited and fostered a new national crisis, a religious conflict, the Rakhine-Rohingya conflict, for its own purposes. 

“This is a very simple and effective strategy. It has happened several times in the past. There have been conflicts between Buddhist monks and Muslims before. They have been fighting each other, and the military dictatorship benefited from it. These clashes were encouraged by the military to keep the people separated. 

“We had started a Metta campaign in our country with slogans for peace and democracy. The campaign includes members of all religions. But now, the Rakhine and Rohingya have turned against each other violently in front of the world. Even some members of the democracy movement have followed the threat of politics by the military regime and have changed sides. 

“I want to say one additional thing. We need to count from the beginning. We only needed to judge with the rule of law those three Rohingyas who raped a girl. Rohingyas or Rakhines, Burmans or Shan, everybody must obey the rule of law. Why encourage racism, why create a crisis? Why blame only Rohingyas and put all of the purnishment on all of them? 

“In Bangladesh, in a minority village on the border with Myanmar, several people were robbed by Bengali groups. The Bangladeshi government took effective action against the robbers with the rule of law, and a crisis was averted. 

“I feel sad to know that some Buddhist monks have joined demonstrations and campaigns against Rohingyas. We already previously kindled a fire of Dhamma for everyone around the world to see in 2007. Do I need to explain in detail the meaning of the Buddha’s words, of Metta, Dhamma, peace, ahitha, thitthar, ageha, for everyone? 

“As you know, my health is not so good, so I have been taking a rest lately. Actually, the past revolution experience was a very dark and hopeless situation inside the prison for me. I faced it, and survived this condition after I was released into the present political situation. I really want to write more about it. But I have to take care of my health first. In the future when I am better, I hope I can do it. Even writing this letter hurts my eyes and causes severe headaches. The deep pain inside my body is bad, but I needed to write and send this to you.” 

The original letter was written in Burmese by U Gambhira (aka Ko Nyi Nyi Lwin) on August 27th to Ms. Yu Yu Ko. The letter was given to The Best Friend International e.V. for publishing. Special thanks for the first translation from Burmese to English by Ko Nyi Nyi Lwin, Tokyo.

Sources Here :

During the past week, the media spotlight has zoomed in heavily on rape. Everyone - from Salma Yaqoob to Laurie Penny - has weighed in on the subject. George Galloway sparked off the debate in the UK, with a video podcast describing the allegations against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as "bad sexual etiquette." The feverish speculation ("Did he use a condom every time?") continues, with little in the way of resolutions.

What has seemingly been forgotten about, however, is a crisis of grave proportions on the other side of the globe. A crisis that features systemic violations of women's bodily integrity as its currency. As John Hemming MP pointed out in his blog, the Assange saga may be entertaining for the media, but there is another situation that warrants our urgent attention, on a continual basis: (http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/).

Two months ago, as Burmese Nobel Laureate Aung San Syu Kii toured the UK to great acclaim, her countrywoman Amina (not her real name) met her death in the most terrifying way possible. Having been assaulted and held down by soldiers, Amina was gang-raped in the village of Pandaung Pin (Nalwborna Para) in Maungdaw, Myanmar. Since 8th June 2012, dozens of girls and women - some as young as twelve and barely acquainted with menstruation - have suffered the same fate. As a 27-year-old man told Human Rights Watch in July 2012: "They tried to snatch the gold jewellery she had, her earrings and her nose ring, but she didn't let them. Then they cut her ear lobe and her nostril with a knife to take it. When she tried to stop them, they tore her blouse open and then raped her. Twelve military and Nasaka [Myanmar's border security force] entered two houses and they raped the women."

Nobody knows the names or faces of these women, or the fact that they come from one of the most under-reported minorities in the world - the Rohingya.

The Rohingya constitute an ethnic and linguistic minority group, who profess Islam as their religion and are related to Chittagonian Bengalis. Based in Myanmar's Northern Rakhine state, their number is estimated at 725,000 or about 80% of the total population of that area (UNHCR). They have faced many years of discrimination at the behest of state authorities, which led to thousands of refugees fleeing to Bangladesh during 1978 and 1991. The role of Bangladesh has come under scrutiny once again (due to the latest clashes), but it has adopted a closed border policy. In any case, Rohingya women get a rough deal in the existing refugee camps, where they are also likely to suffer from sexual violence.

Back in Myanmar, rape has been used as an age-old weapon of war. Many Rohingya men have been killed or put into concentration camps, handing security forces further opportunities to assault women from the inside out. This, in turn, enables them to expunge the men who are still alive. The upshot is the kind of damage which will reverberate for decades, long after the restricted-access cameras have stopped rolling and the bloggers have stopped blogging.

There are additional dimensions to the problems faced by Rohingya women and girls (as cited in the Arakan Project's submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in October 2008). The social norms imposed on them by their own milieu have long since excluded them from decision-making on community matters. Divorced women and widows are ostracised, and once again, find themselves vulnerable to sexual violence. While arranged marriages operate with a reasonable degree of success, forced marriages are not uncommon, and are sometimes initiated for the purpose of trafficking.

The longer this crisis - and its attendant implications for women's autonomy - lasts, the more intractable it seems. However, there are two measures that would get the ball rolling. Firstly, the international community should increase pressure on the Myanmar Government to repeal its 1982 Citizenship Law, as this has effectively rendered the Rohingya stateless. Any new legislation must comply with international human rights standards, including Article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which establishes equal citizenship rights for women). Secondly, further evidence needs to be collected, in the form of victims' testimonies and presented at the UN Committee Against Torture. The late Professor Rhonda Copelon, a personal heroine of mine, was instrumental in re-characterising rape as a form of torture in international law. As Co-Founder of the International Women's Human Rights Clinic at City University New York, she made tremendous strides for sexual violence victims in Haiti and Iraq, among others. It is high time the abuse of the Rohingya women was treated with the same urgency, regardless of their citizenship status in a country they have existed in since (at least) the 15th century.

[Author’s Note: Keynote speech delivered at the International Conference on “Contemplating Burma’s Rohingya People’s Future in Reconciliation and (Democratic) Reform,” held on August 15, 2012 at the Thammasat University, Bangkok.]

As a conscientious global citizen of our planet, I have been writing for the past 32 years since my days as a university student on a plethora of issues, which include history, culture and civilization of the peoples of the South Asia and the Middle East. I have also studied and written on international politics, human rights and terrorism. In my decades of studies I have not found a people that are more persecuted than the Rohingyas of Myanmar, or what used to be called Burma.

It is, therefore, necessary that we learn of this greatest tragedy of our time so that we can work towards finding a lasting solution to it. On a personal level, I consider it to be a privilege to be able to speak on the plight of this persecuted people in front of an audience that care and want to stop their misery. I take this opportunity to thank the organizers, esp. Mrs. Chalida Tajaroensuk (People’s Empowerment Foundation), Mr. Salim Ullah (JARO or Arakan Rohingya Organization-Japan) and Mr. Anwar Burmi (Rohingya National Organization in Thailand) for inviting me to this international conference. My thanks are also to the university administrators, and faculty, staffs and students of the Political Science department of the Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand for hosting this much-needed event. Thank you all for joining us here, esp. those who came from different parts of the world (e.g., Japan, Canada, USA, Myanmar, Malaysia, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Singapore).

I have come here not to debate but to discuss. I have come here not to talk as an expert on Arakan but to speak as a human being who cares deeply about our humanity. After all, what is more important than being an intelligent and rational person who can think, analyze and offer solutions that bind us all together on common themes that go beyond our identity as a race or an ethnicity?

The great Persian poet Shaykh Sa’di (1231-1291 C.E.) wrote:

“Adam’s sons are body limbs, to say;

For they’re created of the same clay.

Should one organ be troubled by pain,

Others would suffer severe strain.

Thou, careless of people’s suffering,

Deserve not the name, “human being”.”

[Tr. H. Vahid Dastjerdi (Mashriq-e-Ma'rifat)]

I would like to believe that we care and want to stop the suffering of the persecuted Rohingya people. As such, we deserve the name “human beings.”

Who would have thought that in our time, some 64 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the world community to guide its behaviors and actions we would see so much of intolerance and persecution of peoples based on their race or ethnicity? The Preamble of UDHR reads:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,… Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.”

There are 30 Articles of the UDHR, starting with “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…” The second one reads: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status…” When it comes to the Rohingya, ladies and gentlemen, not a single one of these rights is honored by the Myanmar government. These unfortunate people are denied their right to citizenship while the 15th Article clearly states: “(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.”

The preamble of the United Nations says, “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and ….”

And yet, the Myanmar government, being a member of the United Nations, denies citizenship right to the Rohingya people. By doing so, it is committing a terrible crime.

What’s wrong with Burma Citizenship Law (1982)?

3. Nationals such as the Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine or Shan and ethnic groups as have settled in any of the territories included within the State as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1185 B.E., 1823 A.D. are Burma citizens.

4. The Council of State may decide whether any ethnic group is national or not.

The name Rohingya was deliberately expunged from the list of 135 national races (which includes 1 Burman major race plus 7 deputy races plus 127 sub-races) of Burma, thus, opening the door for all types of discrimination. [A comparison with the 1948 Union Citizenship Act, as shown below, would reveal that the 1982 Law altered the word Arakanese to Rakhine, thus effectively excluding the minority Rohingyas of Arakan from their shared national status. Similarly, the word ‘ethnic’ was put in place of ‘races’.] Because of their racial and religious ties with the people of Bangladesh – living on the other side of the Naaf River, they are treated as if they have migrated from there since the days of British annexation of Arakan in 1826 C.E., after the First Anglo-Burman War of 1824-26. Forgotten there is the historical evidence that the ancestors of today’s Rohingyas have lived in Arakan from time immemorial (see the history books written by experts like Professor Abdul Karim, Dr. Moshe Yegar and many others).

Interestingly, the author of this highly discriminatory law during the military dictator Ne Win era was (late) Dr. Aye Kyaw, a Rakhine academic who was a key figure in the formulation of racial policy of the ANC (Arakan National Congress). Through this ‘criminal’ law, Dr. Kyaw ensured virtual elimination of the Rohingya people from his native Arakan, where they comprised roughly half the population (i.e., 47.75% according to the estimate of Dr. Shwe Lu Maung in 2005).

As I have noted elsewhere ANC’s doctrine is Rakhine neo-Nazi Fascism, which espouses superiority of the Rakhine race over all other races in Arakan. [See the book – The Price of Silence: Muslim-Buddhist War of Bangladesh and Myanmar, A Social Darwinist's Analysis by Shwe Lu Maung alias Shahnawaz Khan, DewDrop Arts & Technology, USA (2005), pp. 232-244.] Interestingly, Dr. Kyaw had no moral bite to deny the Rohingya of their due share in citizenship while he himself became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He and many of his Rakhine racist followers (including Aye Chan, Khin Maung Saw), of course, did not have to prove ancestral ties of more than 160 years for acquiring citizenship in their adopted countries, something that they demanded that the Rohingyas and many other minorities must now do to be eligible for such rights! What hypocrisy and what a grave crime to rob an entire people!

Note that according to the draft constitution for the Arakan state, formulated by the ANC, “The citizenship of the Republic of Arakan shall be determined and regulated by law. The citizen of Arakan shall be known as Arakanese. Buddhism shall be the state religion. Only the Arakan legal entities and citizens of Arakan nationality shall have the right to own land.” Since the Rohingyas are classified as Arakan Bengalis they will be subjected to a second class citizenship with no right to run for office or own land. It is an apartheid policy of exclusion, discrimination and marginalization of the Rohingya, who are derogatorily called the Kula (Kala) much like how the Afro-Americans were treated in the USA as the Black Niggers.

As noted by Dr. Shahnawaz Khan (Shew Lu Maung), the Rakhaing neo-Nazism is not an isolated small group, but it is a widespread phenomenon led by the umbrella group ANC and supported by most of the Rakhine intellectuals and professionals. The tactics of the ANC and hate provocateurs like Aye Chan, Aye Kyaw and Khin Maung Saw include the total marginalization of the Rohingya people by fomenting fear that if they are not “contained (or eliminated)” as a ‘virus’ they would take over the state. Some of the members openly state that “Save our land even as Hitler if necessary … instead of losing out in foreign hands,” “put the Rohingyas in a concentration camp under UN supervision or settle them in a third country,” “mono-ethnic and majority race should control almost all so that the country can be developed easily,” “there should be no compromise on rights of ethnic Rakhine who is the descendant of Tibeto-Burman tribes (and not Bangali or Indo-Aryan),” “we inevitably have to compose our nation similar to Israel,” and “If Rohingya is to be recognized as indigenous race, any one who claims himself should take DNA test… If his DNA is different from those of the Bangali, he or should be accepted as ethnic Arakan citizen. If not, he should be chased out to Bangladesh or anywhere else away from our land.”

Such utterly racist and hateful comments are enough to prove the Fascist leanings of many of the Rakhine leaders. Funny that racist Aye Chan’s father is Haradhan Barua (Bangali Magh) and mother is an ethnic Rakhine. I wonder if Mr. Chan, who had once again rather conveniently excused himself from defending his ‘influx virus’ thesis against us, would have passed the DNA test required by his fellow racists!

The Question of being Indigenous to Arakan

Are the Muslims of Arakan who identify themselves as the Rohingya indigenous to the soil of Arakan or Burma? Our studies show without any shadow of doubt that they are indigenous, something that has also been accepted by many historians (even within Burma, pre-dating the Ne Win era) and the founding fathers of the Union of Burma. Sao Shwe Thaike who led and organized the Panglong conference in March 1946 famously said, “If the Rohingyas are not indigenous, nor am I.” In 1946 General Aung San assured full rights and privileges to Muslim Rohingya Arakanese as an indigenous people saying: “I give (offer) you a blank cheque. We will live together and die together. Demand what you want. I will do my best to fulfill them. If native people are divided, it will be difficult to achieve independence for Burma.”

Under the First Schedule to the Burma Independence Act 1947, the Rohingya were considered citizens of the Union of Burma. “1. The persons who, being British subjects immediately before the appointed day, are, subject to the provisions of section two of this Act, to cease on that day to be British subjects are the following persons, that is to say -

(a) persons who were born in Burma or whose father or paternal grandfather was born in Burma, not being persons excepted by paragraph 2 of this Schedule from the operations of this sub-paragraph; and (b) women who were aliens at birth and became British subjects by reason only of their marriage to any such person as is specified in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph.”

Under Annex A of the Aung San-Attlee Agreement, 27 January, 1947, the Rohingya are citizens of the Union of Burma: “A Burma National is defined for the purposes of eligibility to vote and to stand as a candidate of the forthcoming elections as a British subject or the subject of an Indian State who was born in Burma and resided there for a total period of not less than eight years in the ten years immediately preceding either 1st January, 1942 or 1st January, 1947.”

Under Section 11 of the Constitution of the Union of Burma (1947), as shown below, the Rohingya are citizens of the Union of Burma: 11. (i) Every person, both of whose parents belong or belonged to any of the indigenous races of Burma; (ii) every person born in any of the territories included within the Union, at least one of whose grand-parents belong or belonged to any of the indigenous races of Burma; (iii) every person born in any of territories included within the Union, of parents both of whom are, or if they had been alive at the commencement of this Constitution would have been, citizens of the Union; (iv) every person who was born in any of the territories which at the time of his birth was included within His Britannic Majesty’s dominions and who has resided in any of the territories included within the Union for a period of not less than eight years in the ten years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of this Constitution or immediately preceding the 1st January 1942 and who intends to reside permanently there in and who signifies his election of citizenship of the Union in the manner and within the time prescribed by law, shall be a citizen of the Union.

The Nu-Attlee Agreement (1947), signed between Prime Minister U Nu (Burma) and Prime Minister Clement Attlee (Great Britain) on Oct. 17, 1947 on transferring power to Burma was very important as to the determination of the citizenship status of the peoples and races in Burma. Article 3 of the Agreement states: “Any person who at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty is, by virtue of the Constitution of the Union of Burma, a citizen thereof and who is, or by virtue of a subsequent election is deemed to be, also a British subject, may make a declaration of alienage in the manner prescribed by the law of the Union, and thereupon shall cease to be a citizen of the Union.”

The Section 10 of the 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma also states: “There shall be but only one citizenship though out the Union; that is to say, there shall be no citizenship of the unit as distinct from the citizenship of the Union.”

Article 3 (1) of the Union Citizenship Act, 1948 (original statement, and amended up to 1957) reads: “3. Any person:- (a) who was born in any of the territories which, at the time of his birth, was included in His Britannic Majesty’s dominions; (b) who had resided in any of the territories included in the Union for a period of not less than eight years in the ten years immediately preceding either the first day of January 1942 or the fourth day of January 1948; (c) who is of good character; (d) who has not done any act prejudicial to the security, peace or interest of the Union; and (e) who is not disqualified as defined in section 2 of the Union Citizenship Act, 1948, may apply to the officer in the district in which he resides for a certificate of citizenship.”

[As can be seen by comparison with the amended version of 1960 (see below), the original statement did not have the “indigenous” racial criterion for citizenship.]

Article 3 (1) of the Union Citizenship Act, 1948 (as amended up to 1960) states: “For the purposes of section 11 of the Constitution the expression “any of the indigenous races” of Burma shall mean the Arakanese, Burmese, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon or Shan race and such racial group as has settled in any of the territories included within the Union as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1823 A. D. (1185 B.E.).” [Author’s note: Arakanese meant all residents of the state of Arakan, e.g., Rohingya and Rakhine.]

Article 4 (2) of the Union Citizenship Act, 1948 (as amended up to 1960) states: “Any person descended from ancestors who for two generations at least have all made any of the territories included within the Union their permanent home and whose parents and himself were born in any of such territories shall be deemed to be a citizen of the Union.”

These two categories of people and those descended from them are automatic citizens who did not require applying to court for naturalization. Rohingya are for all intents and purposes Arakanese and they are also a racial group who had settled in Arakan/Union of Burma as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1823 A. D. (1185 B.E.).

The Rohingyas were not subjected to any laws related to Registration of Foreigners before or after Burma’s independence such as the Foreigner Act (Indian Act III, 1846), the Registration of Foreigners Act (Burma Act VII, 1940) and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1948.

During colonial administration Rohingya representatives were elected from North Arakan as Burmese nationals from the national quotas.

The Rohingya people exercised the right of franchise (the right of citizenship and the right to vote) in all elections held in Burma from British colonial rule up to the present such as, 91 Department Administration election (1936), Aung San’s Constituent Assembly election (1947), all elections during parliamentary rule (1952, 1956, 1960), Ne Win’s BSPP (Burma Socialist Programme Party) constitutional referendum and election (1974) and SLORC military multiparty election (1990), military SPDC’s constitutional referendum (2008) and its multi-party election (2010).

There were Rohingya MPs. Minister, parliamentary secretaries, professionals, doctors, engineers, lawyers, academics, civil and military officers, and others who ran for the public offices. It is noteworthy that citizens whose parents hold FRCs (Foreign Registration Cards) are not allowed to run for a public office.

The parliamentary government (1948-1962) had officially declared Rohingya as one of the indigenous ethnic groups of Burma. The declaration from Prime Minister U Nu said: “The people living in Maungdaw and Buthidaung regions are our national brethren. They are called Rohingya. They are on the same par in status of nationality with Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Mon, Rakhine and Shan. They are one of the ethnic races of Burma.”

As can be seen, the Rohingyas were accepted as indigenous to Arakan by all Burmese government that preceded Ne Win. Yet, they were rendered stateless through the highly racist 1982 Law.

As duly noted by Mr. Nurul Islam of ARNO, a lawyer by training, Burma Citizenship Law of 1982 is the most restrictive citizenship law in the world promulgated by late dictator Ne Win’s BSPP regime on October 15, 1982. It violates several fundamental principles of international customary law standards, offends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and leaves Rohingyas exposed to no legal protection of their rights. It is conflicting government’s obligation to fulfill the rights of the child as stipulated by Article 7(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 which states that the Child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right to a name, and to acquire a nationality. The Burmese government ratified this convention in 1991 and is obliged to grant citizenship to Rohingyas.

Note also that the 1982 Citizenship Law violates:

(1) Article 24(3) of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 also states, “Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.”

(2) Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEADAW), 1979.

(3) Article 5(d) (iii) of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965.

The 1982 Law promotes discrimination against Rohingya by arbitrarily depriving them of their Burmese (Myanmar) citizenship. The deprivation of one’s nationality is not only a serious violation of human rights but also an international crime.

The law continues to create outflows of refugees, which overburden other countries posing threats to peace and security within the region. Of the Rohingya Diaspora an estimated 1.5 million now live in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, UAE, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Indonesia, USA, UK, Republic of Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, and any other place they can find a shelter. The Rohingya refugee crisis with their boat people has become a regional problem of international dimension.

In his report to the United Nations in February 1996, the Special Rapporteur on Burma Professor Yozu Yokota stated, “Muslim population of Rakhine (Arakan) State was not recognized as citizens of Myanmar under the existing naturalization regulations and they were not even registered as so-called foreign residents …Their status situation did not permit them to travel in the country…They are also not allowed to serve in the state positions and are barred from attending higher educational institution.”

He recommended: “The 1982 Citizenship Law should be revised or amended to abolish its over burdensome requirements for citizens in a manner which has discriminatory effects on racial or ethnic minorities particularly the Rakhine (Arakan) Muslims. It should be brought in line with the principles embodied in the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 30 August 1961.”

Another 16 years have passed by since 1996, and a new regime, headed by a retired general, purporting to be reform-minded has been sworn in, and yet the apartheid 1982 Law remains intact in Myanmar. A new pogrom has started and the suffering of the Rohingya continues. In July of this year, President Thein Sein said Rohingyas were not an ethnic group of Myanmar and asked the UN refugee group to help solve their problem by taking over responsibility for the Rohingyas in refugee camps or by sending them to third counties. Simply put, his government does not want them in Myanmar.

The 1982 Citizenship Law sanctions an apartheid policy, which epitomizes neo-Nazi Fascism. As I see, it is a blueprint for elimination or ethnic cleansing of ‘other’ races. Period! The United Nations define ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ as: “Purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

Thus, the latest pogrom against the Rohingyas of Myanmar is a continuation of that policy of total elimination of the Rohingya people, one way or another.

New ‘Myanmarism’

Since the days of military dictator Ne Win, the successive Myanmar regimes (military or quasi-civilian) have learned to exploit racial and religious sentiments to persecute minorities and non-Buddhists. As correctly noted in an earlier Karen Human Rights Group report, their power is rooted in the deep racism that has permeated Burmese society since its beginnings; not only the racial supremacy complex which many Burmans are brought up with, but the racism of the Karen against the Burmans, the Burmans against the Shan, the Shan against the Wa, the Wa against the Shan, the Mon against the Burmans, the Rakhine against the Rohingyas, the Burmans against the Chinese, the Christians against the Buddhists, and everyone against the Muslims. The list goes on and on, and the military has always exploited it to turn people against each other and thereby increase its hold onto power.

The government propaganda continues to encourage a blind racist nationalism, full of references to ‘protecting the race’ — meaning that if Burmans (the majority Bamar people) do not oppress or eliminate other nationalities or races then they will themselves be oppressed, ‘national reconsolidation’ – meaning forced assimilation (through Burmanization and Buddization), and preventing ‘disintegration of the Union’ – meaning that if the Army (Tatmadaw) falls then some kind of ethnic chaos would ensue destabilizing the state. The regime has perfected this art of Myanmarism since the days of General Saw Maung who was handed down power after the bloody crackdown of 1988. [The same recipe of containing the minority Rohingya is followed in the Rakhine state by the majority Buddhist Rakhine.]

The traditional Myanmarism has been Buddhism and militarism since the days of King Anawrahta (ca. 1044-1077 C.E.). The new Myanmarism is a toxic cocktail of ultra-nationalism and religious fanaticism (or religio-racial ultra-nationalism, as coined by Dr. Shahnawaz Khan) as coded in the Lauka-thara-pyo, which is the skeleton of the Buddhist political theology (based on the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha).

If the old one was dirty and ugly, the new Myanmarism is dirtier and uglier. In this, the ends justify the means; lies and deceptions are all too natural and acceptable strategies to rule and govern. It is a feudal recipe for disaster, which shuns pluralism, diversity and multi-culture – the very trend-setters for progress in our time. The 1982 Citizenship Law thus provides the very justification for the Myanmar regime towards elimination of the minority races like the Rohingya.

Since May of this year, Burma has witnessed an escalation of simmering tension between two groups in Rakhine state.Photo: REUTERS

Since May of this year, Burma has witnessed an escalation of simmering tension between two groups in Rakhine state. The violence between the Rakhines (Arakans) and Rohingyas has led to the death of 88 people (official figure as of August 22) and displacement of thousands of others.

Unofficial reports, however, put the number of deaths in the hundreds.

The immediate cause of the violence was the rape and murder of a Buddhist-Arakan woman on May 28 by Rohingyas. This was followed by the retaliatory killing of 10 Rohingyas by ethnic Rakhines on June 3. It must be noted here that the tension between these two groups has existed for decades.

Questions have been asked as to why little has been done to resolve the conflict and if there is a possibility of permanent solution to the protracted problem. Much of the blame has been assigned to both the Burmese government and the opposition.

As the international community is at the stage of promoting their own national interests in this fledgling democracy, sectarian violence such as this has not been paid serious attention to, especially by the Western powers.

While Human Rights Watch criticized the Burmese government for failing to prevent the initial unrest, nations such as Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Malaysia criticized alleged discrimination against the Rohingya Muslims because of their religious belief.

The sensitivity of the issue has prevented many, including the mavericks, from discussing it publicly. Even the internationally acclaimed human rights champion and leader of the Burmese opposition Aung San Suu Kyi has made only brief comments emphasizing the need for establishing proper citizenship law to address the problem.

THE ROOT of the problem begins with the nomenclature itself. Although they call themselves Rohingyas, the Burmese government calls them illegal Bengali migrants.

Since the governments of both Burma and Bangladesh have refused to accept them as citizens, the Rohingyas automatically become stateless people under international law. Under such circumstances, are there any possible solutions? President Thein Sein suggested that the United Nations Refugee Agency should consider resettling the Rohingyas to other countries. Although such proposal may sound ideal, there are challenges facing its implementation.

For example, will there be nations willing to welcome about a million Rohingyas? Moreover, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) chief, Antonio Guterres, has rejected the idea of resettlement. Even if the agency reconsiders the case, do the UNHCR offices in Burma and Bangladesh have adequate resources to process such large number of refugees? One possible solution is for the governments of Burma and Bangladesh to reach an amicable arrangement to integrate the Rohingya population into their respective societies. Currently, there are approximately 800,000 Rohingyas inside Burma and another 300,000 in Bangladesh.

Similar to the first, this proposition has its own challenges. Will the indigenous Rakhines accept Rohingyas as their fellow citizens and live peacefully with them? On the other hand, will the Bangladesh government be willing to offer citizenship to the Rohingyas? Another possible solution is that Burma can amend its 1982 citizenship law to pave the way for the Rohingyas to apply for citizenship.

Under existing law, there are three categories of citizenship: full, associate and naturalized. In addition the governments of Burma and Bangladesh need to secure their porous international borders to prevent illegal movements.

None of the above suggested policies are simple or easy to achieve. Despite the challenges and difficulties, the problem of Rohingyas cannot be ignored for too long.

Without addressing the crux of the issue, the May incident could possibly be one of a series of events that would trigger greater consequences.

Before a solution is achieved, international institutions such as the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations must put pressure on the Burmese government to resolve the problem. The conundrum needs to be addressed holistically rather than inciting hatred along religious or racial divide.

The writer is general secretary of the US-based Kuki International Forum. His general research interests include political transition, democratization, human rights, ethnic conflict and identity politics. His research focuses on the politics of South and Southeast Asia, with a concentration on Burma/Myanmar. He has written numerous academic (peer-reviewed) and nonacademic analytical articles on the politics of Burma and Asia that have been widely published internationally.

Sources Here