Simmering tensions between Buddhists in Myanmar's Rakhine State and Muslim Rohingya exploded in June 2012. A Buddhist girl was raped and murdered, leading to reprisals and a spiral of violence that left scores dead and thousands homeless. New violence erupted last week. Rohingya neighborhoods in Sittwe and whole villages along the coast were razed. Hundreds were killed, including 130 Rohingya fleeing the conflict when their boat capsized in the Bay of Bengal. At least 300,000 Rohingya have taken refuge in squalid camps on Myanmar's border with Bangladesh.

President Thein Sein has been proactive about the current crisis. The Government declared a curfew and deployed 10,000 troops to help quell the violence. Security forces may have exacerbated the problem. Rohingya claim that troops fired on them during the melee.

Myanmar's 800,000 Rohingya originally hail from West Bengal. Today they are stateless people, denied citizenship in Myanmar and rejected by Bangladesh. The UN calls them, "one of the most persecuted people in the world."

The dispute between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya goes back centuries. The Sultan of Bengal surrendered control of the Rakhine Kingdom in 1531. At the time, Rakhine's vast territory extended from the Ganges to the Ayeyarwaddy River, including the Chittagong region in modern-day Bangladesh. The Rakhine Kingdom remained independent until 1826, when it was ceded to Britain after the First Anglo-Burma war. Unskilled Bengali laborers flooded into Lower Burma in the 1870s.

In the Second World War, Rakhine became a battleground between Japan and Britain, with Britain arming the Rohingya and Japan siding with Rakhine. After the war, Britain imported large numbers of unskilled Rohingya laborers. Their influx intensified after India's partition in 1947, and with the birth of Bangladesh in 1971.

All Burmese suffered under the country's military dictatorship. Myanmar's 1982 Citizenship Law is grossly discriminatory. The law accords citizenship and identity cards only to those whose parent or grandparent belongs to an "indigenous race." Those whose ancestry lived in Burma prior to 1823 or whose parents were citizens can themselves be citizens. Marginalization of ethnic and religious groups is the root cause of Myanmar's many conflicts.

When we met last week in Naypitaw, Aung San Suu Kyi emphasized that the rule of law was paramount. A commission of inquiry into recent events in Rakhine should be established. Instigators of the Rakhine riots must be prosecuted. Corrupt local officials and customs agents should be investigated. Placing Myanmar's forces under a professional authority, not the Defense Minister's command, would encourage professionalism and accountability.

Humanitarian access is critical to relieve the suffering of victims. The international community should increase its life-saving support. Donors should be careful, however, that their assistance does not turn temporary camps into permanent settlements.

Satellite imagery is the only record of last week's destruction. Independent monitoring of conditions on-the-ground can serve as a preventive measure. The government is not likely to welcome official observers. But it could accept a civilian monitoring mission of non-governmental organizations from countries in Southeast Asia. A similar arrangement was tried in Aceh during its peace process with Jakarta.

Bangladesh should be pressured to fulfill its obligations under international law and provide a safe haven to those fleeing violence. Despite its endemic poverty and sky-rocketing population, Bangladesh cannot be excused for barring Rohingya.

The international community typically focuses on the underlying causes of conflict. But it would be provocative to force the reintegration of Rohingya and Buddhist Rakhines at this time. Wounds are raw and need time to heal.

Economic development is the foundation of a long-term solution. Rakhine lacks a state-wide development plan. Basic services, especially health services, are deficient. A program to promote livelihoods, particularly for women, is needed.

Festering problems have regional security implications beyond Myanmar's borders. Saudi Arabia offered $50 million in humanitarian assistance. However, Saudi aid comes with strings. The Myanmar Government also rejected a proposal by the Organization of Islamic Countries to establish a liaison office in Rakhine. It fears that Saudi or OIC involvement could exacerbate religious tensions and create a beachhead for Muslim extremism.

The latest round of violence comes at a time when Myanmar is trying to rehabilitate its image in order to gain investment and development assistance. Myanmar has embarked on an ambitious reform course after decades as a closed and repressive society. Violence in Rakhine risks eroding international support. It could also be used by democracy's detractors to roll-back reforms and put the brakes on peace talks with Myanmar's rebel ethnic groups.

David L. Phillips, Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights, recently visited Myanmar.

-Huffington Post-

We are again bombarded by photographs and news of renewed violence in Myanmar's Arakan region (officially Rakhine state). Meanwhile, at the UN in New York, the delegates listened to the report of UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Myanmar Mr. Quintana. While recognizing the democratization efforts in the country, he underlined that it was vital for the Myanmar government and all concerned to prevent further violence, to defuse tensions between the Rakhine Buddhist and Rohingya Muslim communities, and to address the underlying causes of inter-communal unrest.

Like Mr. Quintana, many continue to be concerned with the lack of an articulated policy by the government for integration and long-term reconciliation between the two communities. However, at the moment, preventing further violence, saving lives, and providing emergency humanitarian relief is the priority.

During the past days, Rohingya villages in the Rakhine state came under coordinated attacks by the so-called Rakhine vigilantes. Satellite images of totally destroyed Rohingya villages did not leave any doubt about what had really happened. Rohingya sources reported that from October 21 to 26, over 30 Rohingya villages and 5,086 houses in Kyauk Phyu, Kyauk Taw, Minbyar, Rambray, Pauktaw, and Myauk-U townships in Southern Rakhine state were torched.

Observers reported that the security forces were overwhelmed and could not control the Rakhine Buddhist groups. There are again allegations of assistance by some elements in the local police to the Rakhine mobs. Rohingya leaders give credit to the Union government and the army's timely interventions. Resolve of the security forces must have protected Rohingya villagers from potentially much wider massacres and further attacks. Since the May-June riots, the army was resolved not to allow any more violence, even at the expense of restricting movement and separation of Rohingya communities. However, the situation was not sustainable without a real reconciliation, and under the incitement of extremists, violence recurred.

The Rohingya diaspora cries for an international rescue operation for the escaping Rohingyas stranded on precarious floating boats at sea. They estimated a total of 9,000 Rohingyas were at sea, in the forests, and on open ground without food or basic necessities. There were already around 70,000 registered Rohingya IDPs in the camps before the recent violence. Wounded and sick Rohingyas are afraid to go to hospitals.

Rohingya community leaders suspect that an ethnic cleansing campaign was conceived on September 27 at the Rakhine National Congress which took place in Rathedaung where reportedly the formation of a 6,000 strong Rakhine youth force was agreed upon. They point out that extreme local political forces in alliance with local monks are behind the recent attacks. They insist that well organized and coordinated anti-Rohingya protests by the youth, women, and monks and poisonous social media campaigns were signs of a malign intent that was instigated and orchestrated by the racist and ultra nationalist local Rakhine political forces.

While Rakhine nationalists irrationally blame the Rohingya population for conspiring against the interests of the Rakhine majority by having a higher birth rate and for being outsiders or descendents of outsiders, Rohingya leaders lament that they might have underestimated at the time when news came out of the Rakhine National Convention that so-called Rakhine forces would be coordinating attacks to drive Rohingyas out of their villages towards the North and border areas with Bangladesh.

Rohingyas are not among the 135 officially recognized ethnic groups of Myanmar and lost their citizenship rights due to an undemocratic 1982 Citizenship Law. They still vest their hopes on the Central government and Burmese army in providing protection to them and establishing law and order. They are worried that local Rakhine officials reportedly lodged complaints about the army units who shot at the rioting Rakhine mobs. They are dismayed by the removal of the army units and commanders who protected Rohingyas, after the complaints from local Rakhine politicians.

It seems that this time the army's resolute action and President Sein's warning to the trouble-making, local, nationalistic forces have given a ray of hope to Rohingyas though addressing their fundamental rights is still a political taboo for both the government and opposition politicians.

Indeed, it is encouraging that on Thursday, President Sein's office warned that manipulators behind the recent violence would be exposed and legal action taken against them. Diplomats reported that the President also reached out to the Rakhine elders to seek their assistance to calm down the youth.

The Government is apparently under the siege of the extreme forces. Some explain the recent agitation as an attempt by the extreme Rakhine forces to prevent or derail the issuance of the Internal Investigation Commission's report or manipulate its findings.

The mandate of the Commission includes identifying the root causes of the inter-communal unrest, though there is not one single Rohingya among the 27 members of the Commission but there are some Rakhine extremist politicians. Rakhine extremists who look determined to cease the movement towards a "final solution," apparently are worried that the report could give legitimacy to President Sein to address the citizenship problem of Rohingyas.

When I visited Sittwe in early September heading an OIC observer team to Myanmar, it was obvious to me that the inter-communal conflict was not primarily a religious one but caused by deep rooted inter-ethnic resentment. I was particularly appalled by two things. Firstly, Rakhine locals whom I talked to all hated the UN and the NGOs. When I asked the question why, the answer was "I don't know, this is what we are told". Secondly, the high level of resentment and hatred expressed by the Buddhist monks against the Rohingya ethnic minority was also quite intriguing. However in a meeting with the Rakhine elders and businessmen pragmatism prevailed. I heard appeals for development and creation of employment opportunities. One Buddhist businessman requested assistance for provision of desperately needed rice crop machines. President Sein's recent statement that Myamnar would need assistance also from the Muslim countries was also a positive development.

Communities suffer most when extremists manipulate the populations by creating imaginary internal and external enemies. We should all encourage the democratization process in Myanmar and support the government's efforts to tackle the challenge posed by extreme Rakhine nationalists. However, we should not withhold asking the question whether Myanmar can build democracy without addressing the fundamental rights of the Rohingyas. It is time that Rohinhyas are given a prospect for their future as loyal and equal citizens of Myanmar and hatred against them should not be allowed to simmer.

Ufuk Gokcen  Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to the United Nations. 

A leading advocate for human rights in Burma argues that international ignorance of what is happening in Rakhine State is a tragedy in itself.

The latest attacks against ethnic Rohingya, with thousands of homes destroyed and probably more than a thousand killed, have once again drawn attention to Rakhine State in Burma. International attention had largely moved on following the first large scale outburst of violence in June, but attacks against Rohingya hadn’t ended, they had just taken on a new form. 

Within days of the violence starting in Rakhine State, my organisation, Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK), started to receive reports of families trapped in their homes running out of food. In the weeks that followed, in among the many reports of attacks, rapes and killings we were receiving, the reports of hunger and starvation grew into what appeared to be a deliberately organised plan to starve the Rohingya out of Burma. 

Elements of this starvation policy are being implemented by local communities, and by state and central government. Buddhist monks and other groups have called upon the ethnic Rakhine population to boycott the Rohingya minority. They have called for a rice embargo and are targeting their Muslim neighbours. Many Rohingya who try to leaves their homes or villagers to buy food or harvest crops are attacked and beaten or killed.

Starving

International aid is now reaching almost 100,000 Rohingya who have fled to temporary camps, but hundreds of thousands of Rohingya in towns and villages are not getting any aid, and many are slowly starving in their own homes.

After the violence erupted many Rohingya households were surviving on existing food stocks, which for most people is now used up. Their suffering is made worse by the departure of aid agencies that were forced out when the violence started. Aid workers were arrested and jailed, while others were forced to flee the area. For villagers in areas further away from Sittwe, where no international visitors are allowed, there is no help coming, and children are starving to death.

While my people have suffered for decades, denied citizenship, the right to marry, and have been expelled over the border to Bangladesh, these latest developments signal a new level of abuse. 

Ethnic cleansing is happening in Burma. If anyone needed further evidence for the role of the central state in the latest campaign, they only need to consider the request made by President Thein Sein to the UN Refugee Agency, for the UN to assist in expelling Rohingya from Burma. His request has been enthusiastically greeted by many sections of Burmese society which have used their new found press freedoms to voice hateful opinions about the Rohingya and their place in Burma.

Inaction

Out of sight, people are dying every day because they do not have any food. Thousands of people are facing starvation in the countryside remote areas, and the crisis is unreported and ignored.

The governments of America and Europe have tried to justify their inaction in the face of this ethnic cleansing by arguing it is difficult to get accurate information. Yet they take no action to secure a UN investigation which would establish the truth, and at the same time they welcome a government established investigation which has no Rohingya members, but does contain members who have publicly stated they want all Rohingya expelled from the country. What hope can there be that this investigation will come close to revealing the truth about what is taking place?

Nor does the America or the European Union support what is the only hope for a truly independent investigation into what is going on. That is for the United Nations General Assembly to establish a Commission of Inquiry. They can do this in the resolution on Burma which is being drafted now. The mere establishment of such an inquiry, where for the first time their criminal actions will be verified, might persuade them to end the policy of starvation and mass arrests. Just by being set up, the Commission would save lives. 

But while this Commission does its work, the most urgent issue is to end the attacks, and to ensure aid agencies can freely access all the areas where Rohingya live, providing life-saving aid. People are dying now. They need help. Independent international observers are also need on the ground now.

There have been many changes in Burma in the past two years, but not all of them have been good. For the Rohingya, and other ethnic people such as the Kachin, the situation has got worse. It’s time for the international community to pay attention to the bad things still happening in Burma, instead of only welcoming the good.

Tun Khin is President of the Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK.

Sources Here:

I do not agree with the views of international media and their various news articles, for the last few months, on the conflicts between Rakhine Buddhists and minority Rohingya Muslims. It is true that Rohingyas are majority in Maungdaw and Buthidaung while they are not more than 10% in Mrauk Oo , Minbya, Kyauk Phyu, Myae Bon and Pauk Taw. As such the claim by certain media groups that the Rohingyas that has been oppressed for many decades could attack the overwhelming majority Rakhines who have full support of state apparatus, is totally absurd and is very unfortunate for the suffering Rohingyas. One should ask himself and use commonsense before publishing such destructive news articles. 

Many Rohingya Organizations around the world are demanding UN intervention to provide UN security forces because they are helpless and do not possess any mean to defend themselves from this well-coordinated plan of genocide launched against them. But the Bhuddist Rakhine and Myanmar government do not agree to any international intervention. They will not even allow international humanitarian organizations because they are afraid of the face of real culprits will be exposed to the worlds society. This clearly shows who is under attack and who are attacking. Buddhist monks in Myanmar declared the sympathizers of Rohingyas would be considered as "national traitors," according to a report by a humanitarian group. 

Can someone imagine how Buddhist monks are supporting the plan of exterminating whole Rohingya ethnic community from Arakan? If national security forces do not support Rakhine Community how is it possible for them to do so? Surprisingly, there is no single picture or video which shows Rakhine Buddhist died or their temple was burned while there are thousands of videos and pictures to substantiate their claims of Rohingyas that they have been raped, killed, looted and houses, properties and mosques are being burned down by Rakhine Extremist. 

The president has been very clear that the Arakan issue should not be seen as a religious matter but if anyone is trying to establish it as a religious issue it's definitely the monks," if he doesn’t addresses the issue as religious why he allows all Myanmar Monks to demonstrate against the Islam. There is no doubt that Thein Sein government has involved complicity in this heinous crime against Rohingyas as he is the one only president of a country in this modern days who openly called for the segregation of two communities that have lived side by side for centuries. The RNDP and the president Thein Sein are the most active players of this crime of ethnic cleansing. International community must raise their voices against them without further delay. Otherwise the world will witness the worst genocide of the history in Asia. 

In an attempt to calm the situation, Myanmar President Thein Sein announced for a state of emergency in several areas and said the confrontations have nothing to do with religious differences but he fully involves in cleansing the Rohingyas and he is still going forward on with his plan that Rohingyas should be kept in refugee camp until resettlement to a third country. It seems that this is a master plan to cleanse Rohingya Arakan, eventually from the whole country. 

Few days ago, riot ensued in Bangladesh. It was also pre-planned conspiracy jointly launched by Bangladesh and Myanmar governments. Prime minister of Bangladesh promised that her government would give compensation to the lost properties in the Bangladesh during the riot while Myanmar Government embarked on mass arbitrary arrest of Rohingyas. 

A media reported as: ‘Last week’s clashes once again highlight the plight of the Rohingya as a minority that has been discriminated against for a very long time. The systematic persecution of this group has been ell organized and its brutality has reached all facets of life. This group had been targeted decades ago with a systematic policy of elimination”. 

It must be stopped. Sending extra troops and fortifying security in the Rakhine region is not enough to stop the violence. Without addressing the root cause of the current situation, the problem will continue and so will be the bloodshed’. 

There was an agreement between Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and Myanmar government to open liaison offices in Myanmar to provide the humanitarian aids for the victims of violence regardless of race and religion but the monks and Buddhists backed by the government protested against the OIC for opening the office in Myanmar. The Buddhists from Rakhine state are blocking the aids for the Rohingya since the Turkish government delegation visited the Refugee camps. 

As the situation becomes worse day by day, we would like to request UN, USA, EU, and OIC to advocate for the most oppressed Rohingyas of Myanmar. The world community should give pressure on the Myanmar government to stop the ongoing violence against Rohingya immediately, and restore their citizenship and ethnic rights, and to urgently send an UN enquiry team for the crime against humanity to Arakan State. 

Earlier this week, I listened to the Turkish First Lady, the wife of the Prime Minister, Emine Erdogan, speak about her recent harrowing visit to the Rohingya people in the the federal state of Arakan (formerly now known as Rakhine) who are located in northwestern Burma (aka Myanmar). The Rohingya are a Muslim minority numbering over one million, long victimized locally and nationally in Burma and on several occasions over the years their people have been brutally massacred and their villages burned. She spoke in a deeply moving way about this witnessing of acute human suffering shortly after the most recent bloody episode of communal violence in June of this year. She lamented that such an orgy of violence directed at an ethnic and religious minority by the Buddhist majority is almost totally ignored by most of the world, and is quietly consigned by media outlets to their outermost zones of indifference and irrelevance. She especially appealed to the women present to respond with activist compassion, stressing that women are always the most victimized category in these extreme situations of minority persecution and ethnic cleansing.

The situation of the Rohingya is an archetypal example of acute vulnerability in a state-centric world. In 1982 the territorial government of Burma stripped away the citizen rights of the impoverished Rohingya Muslims who have lived in Arakan for many generations, but are cynically claimed by Rangoon to be unlawful new migrants from bordering Bangladesh who do not belong in Burma and have no right to remain or to burden the state or cause tension by their presence. Bangladesh, in turn, itself among the world’s poorest countries, already has 500,000 Rohingya who fled across the Burmese border after earlier attacks on their communities, and has closed its borders to any further crossings by those escaping persecution, displacement, destruction of their homes and villages, and threats to their lives. To deepen this aspect of the tragedy, only 10% of these migrants who fled from Burma have been accepted as ‘refugees’ by the UN High Commission of Refugees, and the great majority of the Rohingya living in Bangladesh for years survive miserably as stateless persons without rights and living generally at or even below subsistence levels. The Rohingya who continue to exist precariously within Arakan are stateless and unwanted, many are reported to wish openly for their own death. As a group they endure hardships and deprivations in many forms, including denial of health services, educational opportunity, and normal civil rights, while those who have left for the sake of survival, are considered to be comparatively fortunate if they manage to be accepted as ‘refugees’ even if their status as undocumented refugees means the absence of minimal protection, the denial of any realistic opportunity for a life of dignity, and the terrifying uncertainties of being at the continuing mercy of a hostile community and an inhospitable state.

The principal purpose of this educational conference sponsored by Mazlumder, a Turkish NGO with strong Muslim affinities, was to gather experts to report on the situation and urge the audience to take action and thereby mobilize public opinion in support of the Rohingya people. It served to reinforce the high profile diplomatic and aid initiatives undertaken in recent months by the Turkish government to relieve the Rohingya plight. It also called attention to the strange and unacceptable silence of Aung San Suu Kyi, the widely admired democratic political leader in Burma, herself long placed under punitive house arrest by the ruling military junta and recipient of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize honoring her heroic resistance to dictatorship in her country. Her voice on behalf of justice for Burmese ethnic and religious minorities, and especially for the Rohingya, would carry great weight among Buddhists in the country and with world public opinion, and might shame the government into taking appropriate action. As it is, the present Burmese leadership and the prevailing tendency in domestic public opinion is to view the conflict as intractable, with preferred solutions being one or another version of ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity—either forced deportation or the distribution of the Rohingya throughout the country so as to destroy their identity as a coherent people with deep historical roots in northern Arakan. Outside pressures from Saudi Arabia and the United States might help to rally wider international concern, especially if tied to Burma’s economic goals. Aside from Turkey, governments have been reluctant to put pressure on Rangoon in this period because the Rangoon leadership has softened their dictatorial style of governance and seem to be moving toward the establishment of constitutional democracy in the country.

What struck me while listening to the presentations at the conference was how powerful language can become when its role is to think with the heart. I have always found that women are far less afraid to do this in public spaces than men. We fully secular children of the European Enlightenment are brainwashed from infancy, taught in myriad ways that instrumental reason and logical analysis are the only acceptable ways to think and express serious interpretations of societal reality. Mrs. Erdogan not only thinks with her heart, but she infuses such thought with an obvious religious consciousness that conveys a spiritual commitment to empathy that neither needs nor relies upon some sort of rational justification.

Such a powerful rendering of suffering reminded me of James Douglass’s use of the realm of the ‘unspeakable’ (in turn inspired by the Catholic mystic author and poet, Thomas Merton) to address those crimes that shock our conscience but can only be diminished in their magnitude by speech. Their essential horror cannot be comprehended by expository language even if it is emotively heightened by an inspirational appeal. Only that blend of thinking with the heart combined the existential validation of direct witnessing can begin to communicate what we know, in the organic sense of knowing, to be the reality. I have discovered in my attempt to address the Palestinian ordeal as honestly as possible that direct contact with the actualities of occupation and the experience of listening closely to those who have been most directly victimized is my only way to approximate the existential reality. For this reason, my exclusion by Israel from visiting Occupied Palestine in my UN role does not affect the rational legal analysis of the violation of Palestinian rights under international law, but it does diminish my capacity as a witness to touch the live tissue of these violations, and erodes my capacity to convey to others a fuller sense of what this means for the lives and wellbeing of those so victimized. Of course, UN reports are edited to drain their emotive content in any event.

I recall also my experience with the world media after a 1968 visit to Hanoi in the midst of the Vietnam War. I had been invited by a European lawyers’ organization to view the bomb damage in North Vietnam at a time when American officials, especially the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, were claiming ‘the most surgical strikes in the history of air warfare.’ I accepted this ‘controversial’ invitation to visit ‘the enemy’ during an ongoing war, although the fighting was somewhat paused at the time, as ‘a realist’ opponent of the war, basically accepting the position of Bernard Fall, George Kennan, and Hans Morgenthau that it was a losing proposition to suppose that the U.S. could achieve what the French colonial occupying power was unable to do and that it was a costly diversion of resources and attention from more important security concerns. My experience in Hanoi transformed my understanding and outlook on the war. It was a result of meeting many of the leaders, including the Prime Minister on several occasions, visiting bombed villages, talking with peasants and ordinary Vietnamese, and most of all, realizing the total vulnerability of the country to the military superiority of the United States with no prospect of retaliation—the concrete and cumulative terror of being on the receiving end of one-sided war that continues for years. I came away from North Vietnam convinced that ‘the enemy,’ and especially its people, was on the right side of history, and the United States, and the badly corrupted Saigon regime that it propped up, was on the wrong side; above all, I felt the pain of the Vietnamese and was moved by their courage, humanity, and under the dire circumstances, their uncanny faith in humanity and their own collective destiny as a free nation. It produced a sea change in my mindset concerning the Vietnam War, and ever since.

When I left Vietnam, and returned to Paris, I received lots of attention from mainstream media, but total disinterest from these prominent journalists in what was for me the most important outcome of the trip—the realization of what it meant humanly for a peasant society to be on the receiving end of a high tech war machine of a distant superpower whose homeland was completely outside what is now being called ‘the hot battlefield.’ The journalists had no interest in my (re)interpretation of the war, but they were keenly eager to report on proposals for ending the conflict that had been entrusted to me by Vietnamese leaders to convey to the United States Government upon my return. It turned out that the contour of these proposals was more favorable from Washington’s point of view than what was negotiated four years and many deaths later by Henry Kissinger, who ironically received a Nobel Peace Prize for his questionable efforts. My main reflection relates back to the Arakan meeting. The media is completely deaf to the concerns of the heart, and is only capable of thinking, if at all, with the head. It limits thought to what can be set forth analytically, as if emotion, law, and morality are irrelevant to forming an understanding of public events. What at the time interested the New York Times and CBS correspondents, who were sympathetic and intelligent individuals, was the shaping of a diplomatic bargain that might end the war, whether it was a serious proposal, and whether Washington might be interested. It turned out that Washington was not ready for even such a favorable compromise, and plodded on for several years, culminating in the unseemly withdrawal in 1975 in the setting of a thinly disguised surrender.

Poets in the West, caught between a cultural insistence on heeding the voice of reason and their inability to transfer feelings and perceptions into words, vent their frustration with language as the only available vehicle for truth-telling. As T.S. Eliot memorably expressed it in the final section of his great poem East Coker:

Trying to use words, and every attempt

Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure

Imagine if the master poet of the English language in the prior century gives voice to such feelings of defeat (paradoxically in one of the great modern poems), how must the rest of us feel! We who are mere journeymen of the written word fault ourselves for inadequacies of depictions and usually lack the temerity to blame the imperfect medium of language for the shortcomings of efforts to communicate that which eludes precise expression.

Earlier in the same poem Eliot writes some lines that make me wonder if I have not crossed a line in the sands of time, and should long ago have taken refuge in silent vigil:

…..Do not let me hear

Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly

 

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Read more articles by Richard Falk.
http://richardfalk.wordpress.com  

Sources Here:

The Best Solutions to Solve Rakhine and Rohingya issues in Arakan State Myanmar

I still remember every single day of my life where I grown up in Maungdaw Township, Arakan State. We went to school without any fear, bullying and discrimination. We also went to the Mosque, Arabic school for practising Islam. We also participated in various National Event day activities including sport. I also remember one of cousin who is also my neighbour won 26 miles marathon by completing his run with 2hrs and 23mins on Union day sport celebration which is on 12th of February every year. During the winter pick seasons from November to February, Rakhine and Rohingya were always involving together on early morning jogging on the main Road which is connected Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships. Rohingya and Rakhine were always sharing food which usually provide by Lord of the farmers mainly Rohingya. (Lay Pying Shin). We also share sports together such as football, volleyball, Chin Lone. The most amazing event is Buffalo fight during the winter where Rakhine and Rohingya were attended together to enjoy.

Rohingya and Rakhine fail to realise that the grass root of harmonies are slowly infecting with various poison since Ne Win implemented 1982 citizenship Law. My personal feeling is that Rakhine are a looser on failing to realise so. Arakan state is called Rakhine State. Rakhine state is branded to be own by Rakhine, not Rohingya but Rohingya are belong Rakhine state (Arakan State). No one can deny that. On every state in Burma (Myanmar) or perhaps in any part of the world people are to live together regardless of race, ethnicity and religious. It is just like an example of having different types of Flower in the Flower Garden. I personally don’t blame to neither Rakhine community nor Rohingya for the recent riot in Arakan and also their continually built hatred on Rohingya. I simply want to say that they are not clever enough by not realising that they are falling into well prepared Ne Win and Than Shwe poisonous weapon which were designed to divert their crime, Politics and to hold up power as long as they live in this world.

1982 Citizenship Law is the only physically visible document among the equipment which used to fix Ne Win and Than Shwe’s political black hole. There are many others which are invisible but can realise only if someone have been to Arakan State particularly northern part. The most powerful weapon beside 1982 citizenships law was implementing hatred and bullying through institutions such as school, government offices, and government departments. High ranking government officials never incite hate and bullying directly. They just ignite to implement hate and bully to their staffs who were Rakhine against Rohingya and Rakhine took advantage to start spreading. From school, it spread to young children, from government offices it spread to the parent, from government department it spread to the general public.

I started feeling racial discrimination, bullying and hate since 1990s when SLORC came to power. General Khin Nyint who is lefthand man of Nay Win succeeded his God father policy towards Rakhine and Rohingya. Khin Nyint is the person who understand very well on how to incite between Rakhine and Rohingya as he career grown from northern part of Maungdaw Townships in Rohingya village. He even called a Rohingya Person named Abdul Salam from Bolly Bazar as God father who always feed him the best foods, fruits and milk from his farm. Khin Nyint visited his house during his power several times when ever he went to Maung Daw townships. But on another side he is not loyal to his Rohingya God father instead he is more Loyal to his Military God father. 9 out 10 Rohingya believed that Khin Nyint is master mind on Rohingya extermination program by using Rakhine as a fuel to burn down.

Arakan State is fully infected with poisonous virus before 2010 election. No one from new government considered or considering to cure it on their effort to change the country from the darkness to the light for two reasons. First is as the Rohingya issues become so complicated due to Rakhine built up their hate on Rohingya as implemented by passed government and another is Government itself not taking it seriously because of worry that Rakhine may be fighting like Kachin to get Natural recourses share from Arakan State or separate state. President Thein Sein and most of his high level government official’s background is the same regimes as before 2010 who were familiar with rakhine state which is easy to turn political war fare to Communal Riot to divert attention.

I believed solving Rakhine state issues between rohingya and Rakhine can only be through institution such as school, Government offices and Government department. Thien Sein government need to remove all invisible poisonous system from Arakan State and develop institution which develop visible harmony. School teachers need to be trained to teach children against hate, racial discriminations and bullying. This shall be part of national school curriculum.A system need to set up for fairness, a law need to implement for Racial attack or harassment, equal opportunity shall be for both Rohingya, Rakhine and other ethnic need to be in place, Judgment on criminals for both Rohingya and Rakhine shall be according to Law but not according to their background. No matter how much UN, Europe, UK, USA, OIC AND ASEAN will try their best to bring peace in Arakan State, surely peace will not come until President Thein Sein has set up all of above through his Presidency Power and Parliament. Here are some my slogan to Rakhine;

Rohingya only want peace. Not Riot 

Rohingya only want to live hormonally with Rakhine and all other ethnic in Arakan State. 

Rohingya only want to live as a Citizen of Burma as they are before. 

Rohingya only want equal rights same as all ethnic from Burma.

By

Ahamed Jarmal, 

Arakan Born Senior Civil Engineer from London

RB News Desk.

Amidst commendable progress in Burma’s democratization, one voice in the country has been consistently silenced. The Rohingya people are quickly becoming the ethnic minority whose fate will likely be remembered as a “casualty” of democracy – a type of collateral damage symptomatic of states that make the transition from military regimes to full-fledged democracies. In the shadow of Burma’s democratic parading, the fact remains: the Rohingya, a 500,000 Muslim-minority group based in the Arakan region, remain amongst the most persecuted people on the planet — having suffered extreme persecution and discrimination throughout history.

The persecution of the Rohingya is not a novel phenomenon. The Hmannan Yazawin – known in English as the Glass Palace Chronicle – is the standard account of Burma’s pre-colonial Konbaung Dynasty; it boasts the first reported execution of a Muslim man in Burma in 1050 AD. His name was Byat Wi, and legend has it that he was killed because the king feared his “elephant-like” strength. Byat Wi’s nephews also perished under the reign of Mo, Burma’s king.

The Muslim population has been persecuted by successive Burmese governments ever since.

The Rohingya were citizens of Myanmar until the late dictator Ne Win promulgated the restrictive Citizenship Law of 1982. This law declared the Rohingya “non-nationals” or “foreign residents” and excluded them from one of the 135 “national races” recognized by the Burmese government. Expelled from the army and precluded from practicing certain religious practices – for example halal slaughtering – the Rohingya’s political rights have been severely constrained.

Despite settlements in Burma since the 15th century, the Rohingya are effectively stateless.

In June, sectarian violence erupted between Buddhists and Rohingya groups, resulting in 80 deaths, and the displacement of approximately 100,000 people, most of them Rohingya. This includes an incident in which a bus was attacked by Buddhist villagers who killed 10 Muslim passengers. Human Rights Watch has criticized the government for failing to prevent the conflict, and has presented evidence demonstrating government involvement in violence against the Rohingya. As such, the Burmese government may be in violation of basic international law, known as jus cogens, which includes a prohibition on crimes against humanity. It may be argued that the government may be in breach of international human rights law, as well as other international law obligations, such as the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which provides that law enforcement officials shall apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force.

Despite the government touting its political reforms, and releasing Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition, from detention, the tide of anti-Rohingya sentiment is clearly mounting. Thein Sein, Burma’s President, proposed a resettlement plan to relocate Rohingya to a third country – effectively engineering the mass deportation of an unwanted ethnic minority. Unsurprisingly, the UNCHR rejected the proposal. Nonetheless, Buddhist protesters led demonstrations supporting the mass deportation of the Rohingya from Burma.

The world’s response to these events has been disappointingly weak. For a group that has been labeled the "most" persecuted in the world, the Rohingyas have also been one of the most ignored by the international community. As one Harvard Law School report has noted, “the UN Security Council has not moved the process forward as it should and has in similar situations such as those in the former Yugoslavia and Darfur.”

Burma’s recent economic liberalization must be welcomed with skepticism. Despite the much anticipated new Foreign Investment Law, due for further debate in the National Assembly this month, what comfort can investors have if they know that the country selectively enforces the rights of its own people? In other words, Burma’s commitment to the rule of law has yet to be tested.

Not only have the Rohingyas been severely persecuted at home. They also find themselves increasingly isolated in and ostracized by the global community. Having no safe haven in Burma, the Rohingya have fled the country in the thousands, primarily to Bangladesh. However, potentially in contravention of its international legal obligations, Bangladesh closed its border and pushed many Rohingya back across the border. Bangladesh sought to defend its actions by stating that it has no obligation to provide refuge since it was not a party to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 and its Protocol of 1968. But under customary international law, the Rohingya deserve international protection following the targeted death of hundreds, according to Human Rights Watch.

Recent events in the Arab world have raised many people’s hopes that this will be the decade democracy triumphed. Burma, with its own recent democratic political reforms, would at first glance seem to share in some of this democratic excitement. Indeed, Burma has skillfully crafted a compelling public relations campaign showcasing reforms highly valued in the West: the freedom of the press, the release of political prisoners, and the liberalization of its economy. But the international community should hold its applause until Burma faces up to its responsibilities to the Rohingya. If the democratic project is to be complete, the voices of the weakest and most discriminated cannot be ignored.

Lucas Bento is an attorney in New York specializing in complex litigation and international arbitration. Guled Yusuf is a lawyer in London specializing in international law and arbitration.

  

Sources Here:

The Rohingya problem in Myanmar stems from the systematic discrimination against this ethnic and religious minority.

MUCH has been written lately, either empathetically or as a challenge, of Myanmar’s “Rohingya problem”. Since early June, the Rohingya have borne the brunt of communal violence, human rights violations, and an urgent humanitarian situation in Rakhine State, and face an uncertain future. But when considered more closely, is that all? What really is the problem?

The events of this year, as well as the violent events of 1978, 1992, 2001, and 2009, are attributable to systemic discrimination against the Rohingya in Myanmar. That is, to a political, social, and economic system – manifested in law, policy, and practices – designed to discriminate against this ethnic and religious minority.

This system makes such direct violence against the Rohingya far more possible and likely than it would otherwise be. Further, in the eyes of the Myanmar authorities at least – as evidenced by the lack of accountability for the civilians and officials alike – discrimination also makes the violence and violations somehow justifiable. That is the problem.

In 1978’s “Dragon King” operation, the Myanmar army committed widespread killings and rape of Rohingya civilians and carried out the destruction of mosques and other religious persecution. That resulted in the exodus of an estimated 200,000 Rohingya to neighbouring Bangladesh.

A similar campaign of forced labour, summary executions, torture and rape in 1992 led to a similar number of Rohingyas again fleeing across the border.

In February 2001, communal violence between the Muslim and Buddhist populations in Sittwe resulted in an unknown number of people killed and Muslim property destroyed.

Late 2009 featured the pushing back by Thai authorities onto the high seas of several boats – lacking adequate food, water, and fuel – of Rohingyas in the Andaman Sea.

It is true that all of these events have similar, separate equivalents in countries in which systemic discrimination does not take place.

Yet in Myanmar such discrimination provides the violence with a ready-made antecedent, expressly approved by the state. Indeed, to varying degrees, the five seminal events noted above were simply exacerbations of this underlying discrimination.

It would overstate the causality to assert that if Myanmar had never put its system of discrimination against the Rohingya into place, these events would not have occurred. Eliminating it now, however, is urgently required for a sustainable future peace in Rakhine State and, equally important, is a human rights imperative.

The system’s anchor is the 1982 Citizenship Law, which in both design and implementation effectively denies the right to a nationality to the Rohingya population. It supercedes all previous citizenship regimes in Myanmar of 1947, 1948, and 1974.

The 1982 Citizenship Law creates three classes of citizens – full, associate, and naturalised – none of which has been conferred on the Rohingya. Full citizenship is reserved for those whose ancestors settled in Myanmar before the year 1823 or are among Myanmar’s more than 130 recognised national ethnic groups, of which the Rohingya is not one.

Associate citizens are those who were both eligible and applied for citizenship under the 1948 Union Citizenship Act. Requiring an awareness of the law that few Rohingya had and a level of proof that even fewer were able to provide, this included few Rohingya.

Likewise with naturalised citizenship, eligible for those who resided in Myanmar for five continuous years on or before 1948. Moreover, with all three classes, a Central Body has the discretion to deny citizenship even where the criteria are met.

The 1982 Citizenship Law’s discriminatory effects are also extremely consequential. The main one is that the Rohingya, lacking citizenship in Myanmar, have been rendered stateless, both unable to avail themselves of the protection of the state and – as has been the case for decades – subject to policies and practices which constitute violations of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

While not limited to Rohingyas, they are not imposed in the same manner and to the same degree on Buddhists or other Muslims in Rakhine State.

This is systemic discrimination. Laws, policies, and practices, though designed and carried out by people, are ultimately part of or attributable to a system that ensures discrimination even in the absence of discriminatory individuals.

And it is patently unlawful.

As a member of the United Nations, Myanmar is legally obliged to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”, as written in Articles 55 and 56 of the UN Charter.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – though admittedly not a binding document – provides in Article 2 that everyone is entitled to all the rights in the 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.”

It is clear that Myanmar, as a state party to this Convention, is in violation of its international legal obligations pertaining to the right of Rohingya children to a nationality.

Solutions? Myanmar should substantially amend the 1982 Citizenship Law or repeal and redraft it, such that the Rohingya are indisputably made citizens.

Rohingyas born in Myanmar who would otherwise be stateless should be granted citizenship, as should those who are not born there but are able to establish a genuine and effective link to the country.

Myanmar should also eliminate its policies and practices that discriminate against the Rohingya on the grounds of ethnicity and/or religion.

Myanmar’s “Rohingya problem” is almost entirely of its own making. More than any other single step, dismantling its system of discrimination would bring it closer to a solution.

Benjamin Zawacki is the South-East Asia Regional Representative of the International Development Law Organisation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The views expressed here are his own, adapted from remarks given earlier last week at “Plight of the Rohingya: Solutions?”, a conference organised by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation in Kuala Lumpur.

Sources Here:

Since May this year, Myanmar has witnessed an escalation in the simmering tension between two groups of people in Rakhine State. The violence between the Rakhine (also known as Arakan) and Rohingya (also known as Bengali) has led to the death of at least 88 people 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 Rakhine Buddhist woman on May 28 by three male Rohingya. This was followed by a retaliatory killing of 10 Muslims by a mob of Rakhine on June 3. It should be noted that tension between these two groups has existed for several decades.

Several questions are being routinely asked: Why has little apparently been done to resolve the conflict? Is there a possibility of reaching a permanent solution to this protracted problem? Much blame has also been directed at both the Myanmar government and the opposition, led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

As members of the international community are trying to promote their own national interests in newly democratic Myanmar, sectarian violence such as we have seen in Rakhine State has not been paid serious attention, especially by Western powers.

While Human Rights Watch has criticised the Myanmar government for failing to prevent the initial unrest, majority Muslim nations, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Malaysia have criticised what they allege is discrimination against the Rohingya based on their religious beliefs.

The sensitivity of the issue has silenced many from discussing it publicly. Even the internationally acclaimed human rights champion and leader of the democratic opposition, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has made only brief comments about the conflict, emphasising the need to establish an adequate citizenship law.

The root of the problem begins with the nomenclature itself. Although many of the Muslims in Rakhine State call themselves Rohingya, the Myanmar government and many of the country’s citizens call them illegal Bengali migrants from neighbouring Bangladesh.

Since the governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh have refused to accept them as their citizens, the Rohingya have automatically become stateless under international law. Under such circumstances, are there any possible solutions to the problem?

President U Thein Sein suggested that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) should consider resettling the Rohingya in other countries. Although such proposal may sound ideal to many, there would definitely be challenges in terms of implementation.

For example, will there be a nation or nations willing to welcome and embrace the million or so Rohingya people? Moreover, UNHCR chief Antonio Guterres has rejected the idea of resettlement. Even if the agency reconsidered its position, would the UNHCR offices in Myanmar and Bangladesh have adequate resources to process such a large number of people?

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

This proposition also has its own challenges. Chiefly, will the indigenous Rakhine accept Rohingya as their fellow citizens and live peacefully with them? On the other hand, will the Bangladesh government change its policy and offer citizenship to the Rohingya?

Another possible solution is that Myanmar can amend its 1982 citizenship law to pave the way for the Rohingya to apply for citizenship. As Minister for Immigration and Population U Khin Yi told Radio Free Asia recently, under the existing law foreigners can apply for citizenship only if they are born in Myanmar, their parents and grandparents have lived and died in Myanmar, they are literate in Burmese and meet some additional criteria.

Finally, to prevent a further escalation in tensions, the governments of 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 Rohingya issue cannot be ignored for too long. Without addressing the crux of the problem, the May incident and the violence it sparked could recur, with even more tragic consequences.

Until a solution is achieved, international institutions, such as the United Nations and Association of Southeast Asian Nations, should pressure the Myanmar government to take steps to resolve the problem of Rohingya statelessness in a holistic manner, rather than inciting, or allowing others to incite, hatred along religious or racial lines.

(Nehginpao Kipgen is general secretary of the United States-based Kuki International Forum. His research interests include political transition, democratisation, human rights, ethnic conflict and identity politics and he has written numerous peer-reviewed and non-academic articles on the politics of Myanmar and Asia.)

Sources Here: