A public complaint Ref. CAS-2274826-2NBV1N

BBC Radio Four and BBC Burmese News Editor for echoing, rather than analyzing, Burma's Anti-Rohingya Racism

Chris Pattern

Chairman

BBC Trust

180 Great Portland Street

London, W1W 5QZ

Date: 11 October 2013

Dear Lord Pattern,

Greetings from Kuala Lumpur! 

The last time I saw you was at Gareth Evans’ book launch of his“Responsibility to Protect”, at the IISS in 2008.

With Burma now being a ‘R2P concern’, to use Evans’ characterization of my country in his book, I am writing to you in order to publicly register my grave concerns about the racist and professionally sub-standard ways in which the issue of the Rohingya ethnic cleansing and the rise in anti-Muslim violence in Burma was presented on the BBC’s Beyond Faith: Violence and Buddhismbroadcast live at 16:30 hr on 19 Aug 2013, by the two BBC journalists involved in the programme (see the programme here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038c0f6).

My own contribution as a professional researcher and dissident to the live discussion was in the form of a pre-recorded clip, and I was hence in no position to point out, correct or otherwise rebut any verifiably false information which was packaged as ‘expert analysis’ or ‘considered opinion’.

There were a number of issues which were disturbing about the aforementioned Radio Four Burma episode. However, I wish to draw your attention to two most crucial problems in the way in which the radio discussion was organized, the content (information and misinformation) the programme conveyed and the message it sent to millions of British – and international audiences. 

First, the live broadcast publicly reinforced, amplified and rationalized Burma’s popular and state-mobilized anti-Rohingya racism – that there is a “well-founded fear” of Rohingya population growth. In fact, this narrative is simply one side of the same coin the other side of which frames the Rohinga as a threat to local Buddhist Rakhine population and the country’s predominant Buddhism and her national security. During the programme, the twofold issue of the securitization and illegalization of the Rohingya was carried out by none other than the BBC Burmese service editor Mr Soe Win Than, a participant in the live discussion. During the Radio Four’s Burma episode, the BBC Burmese editor was repeating Burmese government’s racist propaganda, and calling the state-mobilized ethno-nationalist fear among the majority Buddhist Burmese "well-founded", without refuting or problematising it.

This empirically false perception of the Rohingya as ‘illegal Bengali’ from the neighbouring Bangladesh is a product of the country’s successive military Governments since the second phase of General Ne Win’s autocratic rule in the late 1970’s. It is also the view the Islamophobic public at large, which generally is exceedingly critically of the Burmese military leaders and the State institution, have embraced at face value out of the country’s popular anti-Muslim racism. 

It is one thing that the Burmese public, which are still reeling from the legacy of half-century of live under an extremely illiberal and racist military leaderships, holding deeply racist worldviews about the entire community of Islam, namely Muslims of Burma and by extension the Rohingya Muslims. However, it is a different matter altogether, when a senior BBC broadcaster who has been with the BBC World Service Burmese Program for more than 10 years, working in the heart of London to approvingly air this popular racism on the BBC’s flagship Radio Four.

Second, on her part, the producer Liz Leonard went on to officially back up her BBC Burmese colleague Soe Win Than’s verifiably false narrative about the Rohiongya peoples, without doing her homework to see if the fellow BBC journalist was presenting the independently-sourced facts or simply reciting the ‘facts and figures’ released by the Government of Myanmar. As you know Burma’s military-controlled government’s reputation rests not on truth-telling but its lies, misinformation and distortions about the country’s budget, ethnic make-up, rape, child soldiers, revenues, political prisoners, and so on. 

Here is the Radio 4’s Beyond Belief producer in her own exact words:

"Soe Win Than’s comments about Rohingya Muslims were all commentary on the situation in the country, backed up with figures and were discussion of the position of the state and people, rather than his own views. For example, when he says “well-founded fear” he is referring to figures about Rakhine townships and that “originally there were more Rakhine people but now 95% of the population is Rohingyas, or Bengalis there."

Both US President Barack Obama and UK’s Speaker of the House of Commons Mr John Bercow chose to address the Rohingya by the latter’s own chosen ethnic identity during their public speeches at Rangoon University in Nov 2012 and July 2013 respectively. In fact, the British Speaker of the House was emphatic when he denounced calling the Rohingya ‘Bengali’ as ‘racist, racist, and racist’. 

The word Bengali is a proud label for many a sons and daughters of the soil of Bengal including the late Rabindranath Tagore, as well as my good Bengali friends Amartya Sen and Gayatri Chakrovorty Gayatri. But, it is used in the Burmese context, as a part of a national discursive strategy to convey falsely the ‘foreignness’ and ‘illegality’ of their cultural and ethnic identity. 

As such, the word Bengali is experienced by the Rohingya as a deeply racist term, providing justification for mis- and inhumane treatment of these people. Various law enforcement agencies including police, police special branch, local security units, and so on have in fact punched, kicked and otherwise inflicted physical pains on the Rohingya who refuse to accept the label ‘Bengali’ as their ethnic identity, according to our interviews with scores of Rohingya refugees in Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Australia, Europe, and USA.

Against this backdrop, my English researcher colleague who listened to the programme live on-line, was so “outraged” by the decidedly racist overtone of Soe Win Than’s intervention in the Burma discussion that she left a formal complaint for the BBC to review at the BBC official website immediately following the live programme’s broadcast on 19 August. (I am attaching her exchange with the BBC herewith).

In fact, she was not alone in her outrage. Professor Geoff Whitty, former Director of the Institute of Education (IOE), U. of London, emailed me the next day when he saw my own negative on-line reaction to the Radio Four’s live program. (As you may know Geoff is the younger brother of your fellow peer Lord Whitty). 

In Geoff’s words: "This was very much my own reaction. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Keep at it!"

Just as the producer Ms Leonard had more than 6-weeks to find a real, authentic Muslim voice, preferably Myanmar Muslim or a Rohingya Muslim – there are plenty of Muslim refugees and migrants in greater London from Burma – , she could easily have done some on-line research in order to fact-check “the well-founded fear” of Rohingya population, before officially, and simply, repeating Soe Win Than’s ‘facts and figures’. BBC Burmese journalist sourced his facts evidently in Burma’s official Rakhine Violence Inquiry Commission, which is widely considered among Burma human rights researchers and country experts as a whitewash.

In fact, there are various, credible and independent sources of demographic statistics pertaining to the Rohingya issues. I am not going to go into details about the population statistics here. My research colleague has provided a detailed rebuttal to Radio Four producer’s professionally incompetent defence of both her Burma episode and her fellow BBC journalist, Mr Soe Win Than. 

In our 3-year joint research, our 2-members team have concluded that Burma’s systematic, inhumane treatment at the hands of successive military governments since Ne Win’s latter years in 1978 is very well in the twin-category of a genocide and an “ethnocide, a cultural variant of genocide”, to borrow an insight offered by Samantha Powers, the Pulitzer Prize winning academic author of “A Message from Hell: America in the Age of Genocides” and now the US Permanent Representative to the UN. 

We are not alone in viewing the persecution of the Rohingya – and now the widening campaign of violence against all Muslims of Burma – through the valid lens of genocide/ethnocide.

One of the foremost scholars in the field of genocide studies Professor Gregory Stanton of George Mason University in Virgina, USA and President of the Genocide Watch, have reached his own professional conclusion – that the Rohingya are undergoing a slow-cooking process of genocide.

We are all aware that neither the ‘great powers’ nor Aung San Suu Kyi are said to have any appetite for calling the 35-years of the Rohingya persecution by its proper name – genocide - for their own divergent reasons. 

I did not and do not expect that the BBC will step in and take up the cause of the Rohingya people. But I did expect the BBC to uphold high journalistic standards, which were clearly spelled out in your BBC Trust official report “A BBC Trust Review of the Breadth of Opinion Reflected in the BBC’s Output (released just last month July 2013; Accessed 20 Aug 2013 http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/breadth_opinion/breadth_opinion.pdf) . 

My complaint is more than an act of disappointment by a listener and sometime contributor to the BBC programs, including Radio Four. I am gravely concerned that the BBC with its global reach and influence is broadcasting racist views and less-than-factual information which have become a discursive foundation for the state-sponsored ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Rohingya people whom the United Nations quite rightly calls “friendless” and “one of the world’s most vulnerable peoples”.

If the high standards BBC Radio Four is found to be broadcasting verifiably racist program with poorly sourced content then I think it is highly likely that the BBC Burmese Service caters to the millions of anti-Rohingya Burmese viewers with their typically anti-Muslim views may be putting racist slants on its Burma news, discussions and other Burmese language programmes regarding the plight of the Rohingya in particular and the Muslim affairs in general. 

With Burmese editors at the Burmese Service who do not problematize the now world-infamous “Buddhist” racism and who do not care to independently source the Rohingya-relevant ‘facts and figures’ other than the official government reports and pronouncement, I sincerely request an independent evaluation of the BBC World Service Burmese language broadcasts with specific respect to the Rohingya and the anti-Muslim violence since the anti-Rohingya pogroms broke up in June 2012, which left hundreds of mainly Rohingya deaths and over 150,000 Rohingyas displaced.

I genuinely do not think that the British license fee payers and the public at large should be funding programs that verifiably end up reinforcing, amplifying and justifying the framing of the Rohingya as a threat to Burma’s national security, Buddhist face and local ‘races’. For all genocidal acts begin with framing the Cultural and Ethnic Others as ‘an enemy’ ‘an existential threat’, ‘viruses’, ‘snakes’ and so on.

Finally, I am sending copies of this public complaint to the individuals and organizations that have expressed publicly their deep concerns for the Rohingya people.

Thank you very much.

With my warm personal regards,

Maung Zarni

Visiting Fellow, Civil Society and Human Security Research Unit, LSE 

https://www.maungzarni.com/

Cc:

• Amartya Sen, Thomas A. Lamont University Professor, and Professor of Economics and Philosophy, Harvard University & Honorary Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford
• Geoff Whitty, Professor and former Director, Institute of Education, University of London
• Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, University Professor, Columbia University, New York
• Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor, MIT
• Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)
• John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, UK
• Gregory Stanton, Research Professor, George Mason University & President, Genocide Watch
• William Schabas, Professor of International Law, Middlesex University & National University of Ireland at Galway
• Desmond Tutu, S. Africa
• His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Tibet
• Sulak Sivaraksa, International Network of Engaged Buddhists
• Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister, Malaysia 
• Youk Chhang, Cambodia Documentation Center
• Michael Chertoff, Chair, the Committee on Conscience, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and former Secretary of Homeland Security, USA
• Barack Hussein Obama, US President
• John Kerry, US Secretary of State
• Derek Mitchell, US Ambassador to Burma, Rangoon
• Andrew Patrick, UK Ambassador to Burma, Rangoon

Huson Salm
RB Article
October 26, 2013

Under the banner of Nobel Laureate, hegemonic attitude of Suu Kyi was clearly known by her interview with BBC reporter on Thursday, October 24 2013. 

As a matter of fact, she has been trying and lobbying since 2012 to reform the 2008 constitution, which was drafted by the then SLORC and SPDC military backed government. 

The power hungry Suu Kyi, wants to be president of the state in the 2015 election. She has been profoundly trying to organize the entire national races in line with Suu Kyi. 

In reality, the 2008 constitution is totally unreasonable, bias and unjust. 

She had been in a foreign country until 1988. She became a overnight heroin in 1988 chaos under the shadow of Bogyoke Aung San. She never did anything good for the sake of the country. In fact, she might not have had chance to do it. 

When she was in house arrest for many years, the entire world had been crying out for her release. This because the whole universe thought that it was totally unjust. It took the constant effort of the universe to free her. She was released shortly after the 2010 election. It was good for entire world community because people around the world consider her as magnetic, fantastic, kind, intellectual, and heroic. Broad minded and smart in social and political setting. 

Seeing this by the universe, she had been awarded varieties of prizes from around the world including Muslims world. 

May be she is good for herself but right now she has been seen more as ignorant, pathetic, ascendancy, selfish, fanatic, reserved, ill-mannered, jingoistic and xenophobic and so on.

During her arrest, the Rohingyas refugees living in Bangladesh heartedly prayed for her urgent release just because Rohingyas love Bogyoke Aung San and Suu Kyi, being the daughter of Aung San. Not because of any political gaining and also the Rohingya refugees felt that they would only return while Suu Kyi was in power. What a great love of Rohingyas refugees. 

People all around the world thought that she is too heroic, magnanimous, farsighted and upright in handling both social and political sides for local and international audiences. 

Right now, after seeing and hearing her attitude in BBC interview, she is regarded as nothing more than a great greedy and selfish lady after occupying all the valuable prizes from around the world. 

She is merely employing for her Buddhism and Bamar people alone rather than paying attention for multi-races and religious people of the country in line principle of as a Nobel Laureate. 

Now her ill habit is widely known that she forgets that she has received a lot of prizes from the world community on ground of social activities. 

Or she thinks that she doesn’t need to take care of the things subjected in regards Rohingyas, kaman and Burmese Muslims. 

Or it seems that she thinks the inhumane and untold suffering of Rohingyas, Kaman and Burmese Muslims social affairs are regarded as trash and nonsense. 

Or she thinks that she is now in the same attitude of Thein Sein government. Many small-minded parliamentarians, Rakhine terrorist leaders, terrorist Buddhists monks, and bigoted 88 generation so called student leaders.

It is crystal clear that she wants to be president of the state by the favor vote of majority Buddhists people and doesn’t need to take care of other ethnic people and that of their basic rights.

What did she learn in foreign country where she has lived for many years and even employed in so many UN agencies?

Being the Nobel Laureate and popular leader of a state, does she think that she can bully local Muslims and Muslims of the world with the coordination mechanism of extremist monk Wirathu, Rakhine terrorists and Buddhist terrorists locally?

Didn’t she understand the BBC reporter’s questions which were all in English? (Or) what else?

BBC reporter asked Daw Suu Kyi that Rohingyas and Muslims of Burma have been living as displaced persons in their location under the horrendous threat, fear and constant intimidation of Rakhine terrorists, Buddhist terrorists and authorities. In that question, Suu Kyi has answered that there have been many Buddhist people left Myanmar for foreign countries for the past fifty years. The answer was very clear by Suu Kyi, there are many Myanmar Buddhists living in Thailand where she had already paid visit. She promised them return back to Myanmar while she is in power. There are also many Rohingya people living in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and so on, as refugees who had to suffer the brunt of miseries & affliction, having to flee to foreign countries for more than fifty years. Then what about their status to return back to their native land? This was irrelevant answer paid by Suu Kyi, why was that? BBC reporter wanted to know from her (Daw Suu Kyi) tongue that If Suu Kyi would say “there are no Buddhist displaced persons like Rohingyas, Kaman and Burmese Muslims in swamp wetlands and flimsy tents because of the violence happened in Myanmar. But she twisted the answer dishonestly.

Does she think people from the world are naive? People around the world are not the students in her primary school nor are they naïve.

And while BBC reporter asked the question …what about Muslims of Burma living in under the constant intimidation and in fear? Suu Kyi answered that all the violence had been under the base of fear in grass-root levels and because of there are greater global Muslim power. What an irresponsible answer by the prominent leader of a state and a novel prize winner, what a shame for her and for the state.

Global Muslim power? What is that? What is the concern of global Muslims power and local Buddhist terrorists inhuman one-sided torture and killing on innocent Rohingyas, Kaman and Muslims of Burma? If so, she, as a Nobel winner, can she prove that global Muslim power has any role on local Muslims to bully on Arakan state or propel Burma through international investigation? What a bullshit intellectual behavior and bogus idea!

Does global Muslim power mean the peaceful demonstrations which have been all along the countries by global community not to punish, kill, torch, evict and so on against helpless Muslims of Myanmar? Isn't it fair? If not what about her? The same demonstration had been done by the global community until Daw Suu Kyi was released.

Or, was it an inner scheme of all Myanmar coordinated politicians to crack down on Muslims. A preempted action by the fanatic Buddhists before into an effect of global Muslims power in 21st century? People never thought global Muslim power, local Muslim and Buddhist clashes. Daw Suu Kyi had many time uttered that there would not be any occupied power in 21st century. What happened to her now? What if she becomes a little crazy?

If such violence were spiritually supported to happen to minority Muslims under the pretext of global Muslim power to take prior action on helpless people by majority of Buddhist Myanmar, then there would be more or less clashes in the future, in this land by the help of Daw Suu Kyi’s inspiration and different political icons. The truth is Daw Suu Kyi should be most wanted culprit in the past clashes, dead, casualties, destruction, loss of lives and livelihood of Rohingyas and Muslims of Burma in accordance to her way of answering to the BBC reporter.

As more, her position of easy going attitude and keeping quiet about the violence in Rakhine state and proper Burma has proved that she has been susceptible into guilty crime against humanity.

Why doesn't she agree the facts finding of international bodies of HRW and international human rights commissioner, Thomas Ojea Quintana? If so, Suu Kyi doesn't deserve to win Nobel prize and that of the attribute which she has been receiving from every corner of the world.

Right now, the onus is on international community to save Rohingyas and Muslims of Myanmar from her more open dangerous attitude.. The sooner the better.

 October 26, 2013

Joint Statement on Aung San Suu Kyi’s outrageous remarks on Muslims 

Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK) and Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO) strongly condemn Burmese opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for her outrageous comments on Muslims in an interview with BBC on Thursday, 24 October 2013.

Her remarks on Burma’s peaceful living Muslim minority communities are full of prejudice based on fanatical patriotism and islamophobia. In a situation of injustice, ethnic cleansing and genocide against Rohingya and other Muslims in Burma, she tried to defend Buddhist extremism saying that Buddhists in Burma are terrified by “global Muslim power” where there is no such threat from Burma’s numerically very small and insignificant Muslim population. This is a pretext or a fictitious reason, where Burma is a predominantly Buddhist country, particularly when the Rohingya are rendered stateless with no basic freedoms, in order to conceal the real reason.

Despite repeated requests, Suu Kyi refused to visit the Rohingya areas where credible organization like Human Rights Watch (HRW) had found evidences of mass graves in Arakan. Experts in international law, after examining all evidences, conclude that ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have been perpetrated against the Rohingya population. Yet she rejects to accept and condemn these international crimes.

She remains indifferent to ongoing ‘Rohingya or Muslim extermination’, the great humanitarian disaster being faced by the Rohingyas in their squalid displacement camps and villages under siege in segregated and apartheid like situation and continued plight and dilemma of an estimated 1.5 million Rohingya diaspora and boat people around the world. She tries to befool the international community saying “A number of Buddhists had left the country during the era of dictatorship”. This remark is completely irrelevant. 

It is very worrying that notorious anti-Muslim hate preachers have taken great encouragement from her words. She is not only pushing humanity towards interfaith antagonism but also reducing the possibilities of peace, tolerance and mutual coexistence amongst the country’s different societies, ethnic and religious groups. However, her behaviour does not reflect the position of the majority people as history testifies that Burma’s Buddhists and Muslims lived hand in hand, peacefully, for centuries. 

It is unfortunate that Thein Sein’s government rejects and persecutes the Rohingya and other Muslims while some political parties and influential opposition leaders are apathetic audience applauding the oppressors. 

Under the circumstance, we urge upon the United Nations to use its opportunity to include in its General Assembly resolutions on Burma, which they are currently drafting, the establishment of UN Commission of Inquiry into these crimes. This could establish the truth and make recommendations for action in the interest of international peace and security. 

Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that Islam advocates peace, love and harmony and decries all unjust violence; and we invite the attention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all Burmese leaders to the positive and constructive aspects of Islam, its peaceful teachings and philanthropic philosophy and orientation. 

Form more information please contact 

Habibur Rahman +88(0) 1817012919

Tun Khin +44 (0) 7888714866

By John Sparks 

Channel 4 Blog

October 25, 2013

As political heroes go, few rank higher that Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. Most people know her as a modern-day saint – the diminutive democrat who defied Burma’s ruthless military leaders. Yet an increasing number are beginning to question Ms Suu Kyi’s judgement. 

Remarks made in a BBC television interview this week in relation to that country’s brutal ethnic conflict between Buddhists and the minority Muslims have earned particular criticism. Observers and activists have accused Burma’s “icon of democracy” of factual inaccuracies and a surprising shortage of compassion. 

Ethnic violence erupted last year in Sittwe, the capital of Burma’s Rakhine state. Rohingya Muslims bore the brunt of the violence with an estimated 142,000 now living in a series of squalid camps. In April, Human Rights Watch accused government and military officials, as well as local extremist groups, of ethnic cleansing. 

When asked about HRW’s findings by the BBC, Ms Suu Kyi dismissed them out of hand. “It’s not ethnic cleansing,” she said. “What the world needs to understand (is) that the fear is not just on the side of the Muslims, but on the side of the Buddhists as well.” This is her standard response to questions about the violence. Nobody bears responsibility. Instead, “fear” is blamed. Everyone suffers “equally”. In Ms Suu Kyi’s world, victims and offenders are the same. 

Unfortunately, it’s not true. The vast majority of Muslim Rohingya residents in Sittwe have been cleared out while Buddhists (for the most part) remain in their homes. Furthermore, Muslims are politically powerless. They are denied citizenship in Burma and face a wide range of draconian restrictions on healthcare, schooling, travel – even their ability to have children. The Buddhist population on the other hand face no comparable restrictions – and why would they? They control the local and state government. 

Muslims in Burma were troubled by several other references in her BBC interview. First, a reference to those Muslims who had “managed to integrate” has made many feel uncomfortable. Here’s what she said: “I would like to make the point that there are many moderate Muslims in Burma who have been well integrated into our society….” That’s got many people asking whether she thinks Muslims have to acquire some sort “Burmeseness” in order to be “accepted”. There is, of course, no such thing as a national identity in Burma. The constitution recognises 135 different ethnic groups 

Secondly, Ms Suu Kyi seems to suggest that the violence was caused by Buddhists’ fear of what she calls “global Muslim power”, saying: “You, I think, will accept that there is a perception that Muslim power, global Muslim power, is very great and certainly that is the perception in many parts of the world, and in our country too.” This is dangerous territory for the Nobel Prize winner. 

The Rohingya have not been linked with any acts of violence – or pan-Arab extremist groups like al-Qaeda – despite the desperate situation they find themselves in. If Burmese Buddhists perceive Muslim groups like the Rohingya to be part of a “global Muslim power movement”, it is incumbent on her, as a person with real moral authority, to correct that misconception. 

Despite her comments, Ms Suu Kyi finds herself very much in demand. She has been in the UK this week visiting a long list of dignitaries, like the Prime Minister David Cameron and former leader Gordon Brown, as well as Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall. Today, Ms Suu Kyi travelled to Sandhurst military academy (see picture above) to “deliver a speech and see the cadets training,” according to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Interestingly, Ms Suu Kyi won’t be visiting any civil rights groups in London – the organisations who supported her vigorously when she spent nearly two decades under house arrest. Nor is she expected to drop in on members of the sizeable Burmese community in the UK. To do so would lead to the sort of robust exchange of views that our modern-day saint now seems keen to avoid.

Follow @c4sparks on Twitter.

By Samantha Michaels 

The Irrawaddy

October 25, 2013

RANGOON — Democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi has received a mix of condemnation and support from Burmese rights activists and religious leaders after denying that Muslims were the targets of ethnic cleansing in her country and saying that fear among Buddhists has exacerbated religious tensions.

In an interview with the BBC on Thursday, Suu Kyi said inter-communal violence that has displaced more than 140,000 Muslims in Burma stemmed partly from an overall state of fear among Buddhists and Muslims alike.

“It’s not ethnic cleansing. … I think it’s due to fear on both sides. And this is what the world needs to understand—that the fear is not just on the side of the Muslims, but on the side of the Buddhists as well,” she said. “Yes, Muslims have been targeted, but also Buddhists have been subjected to violence. There’s fear on both sides, and this is what is leading to all these troubles.”

Suu Kyi, who has been criticized over the past year for not taking a stronger stance against anti-Muslim violence, added, “There’s a perception that Muslim power, global Muslim power, is very great. And certainly that is the perception in many parts of the world, and in our country, too.”

When asked about Muslims in west Burma’s Arakan State who have lived in squalid displacement camps since two waves of clashes broke out last year in June and October, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate said Buddhists had also faced human rights violations for decades under military rule.

“There are many, many Buddhists who have also left the country for various reasons, and there are many Buddhists who are in refugee camps for various reasons. You will find them in Thailand, very many of them, and you will find them scattered all over the world. This is the result of our sufferings and a dictatorial regime. And I think if you live under a dictator for many years, people don’t learn to trust one another. A dictatorship generates a climate of distrust and suspicion.”

She called on the government to ensure accountability for perpetrators of violence.

“Instead of asking us, the members of the opposition, what we feel about it, what we intend to do about it—because you must see that we are not in a position to do the sort of things that a government must do—you should ask the present government of Burma what their policy is, how they are going about this problem, and how they intend to deal with it.”

During her visit to Europe this week, Suu Kyi on Tuesday traveled to France to receive the Sakharov human rights prize, which she was awarded in 1990 but could not accept at the time.

After her interview on Thursday, international Burma observers responded critically, while a UN rights envoy warned that anti-Muslim sentiments were threatening political reforms amid Burma’s transition from dictatorship.

“The situation in Rakhine [Arakan] State has fed a wider anti-Muslim narrative in Myanmar [Burma], which is posing one of the most serious threats to the reform process,” Tomas Ojea Quintana told the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, which deals with human rights issues, as quoted by Reuters.

Meanwhile, Burma observers including David Blair, chief foreign correspondent of The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London, criticized Suu Kyi’s BBC statements.

“I never thought I would write this, but Aung San Suu Kyi sent a shiver down my spine when she appeared on the [BBC’s] Today programme this morning. Her equivocal attitude towards the violence suffered by Burma’s Muslim minority was deeply disturbing,” Blair wrote in an online commentary for the newspaper.

Others in Burma were more sympathetic to the National League for Democracy (NLD) leader, who won the hearts of many in her country through her opposition to the military dictatorship that ceded power to Thein Sein’s nominally civilian administration in 2011.

In Rangoon, an editor of the country’s first human rights journal said Suu Kyi should have said more to condemn anti-Muslim violence, but that he could understand her decision to refrain from taking sides, with her eye on becoming the country’s next president in 2015.

“She spoke in a diplomatic way,” said Wai Yan Phone, editor in charge of the recently launched Journal of Human Rights and Democracy, published by the Myanmar Knowledge Society. “She doesn’t want to lose votes from the Buddhist majority and she doesn’t want to hurt the Muslims who were the victims of violence last year.”

He agreed that Naypyidaw had not taken enough responsibility to hold perpetrators of violence accountable.

“The government has a full responsibility to stop hate speech and to mobilize harmony among different religious groups in the country,” he told The Irrawaddy on Friday. “But so far, only civil society has organized interfaith talks, while the government has been very inactive to address this issue. … And as we have read, security forces have done nothing, almost nothing to stop the advancing mobs from attacking the Muslims.”

He added, “I think she should have said more. When it comes to the issue, especially with the Rohingya [Muslims] and inter-communal violence, she is less vocal than she should be.”

Pyone Cho, who leads the human rights sector for the 88 Generation Students, a prominent group of pro-democracy activists, also supported Suu Kyi’s points about government accountability.

“We suggest that human rights groups should deal directly with government authorities on this issue,” he told The Irrawaddy, emphasizing that his views did not necessarily reflect those of his organization. He said he had personally urged Human Rights Watch not to describe violence in west Burma as ethnic cleansing, before the US-based rights group published a report earlier this year describing the June and October clashes as such.

Asked why he did not agree with the term “ethnic cleansing,” Pyone Cho said, “Because both sides were violated. Everybody should try to stop the problem peacefully.”

The inter-communal violence that broke out in Arakan State last year has been a major stain on the political and economic reforms of Thein Sein’s administration. Of more than 140,000 people displaced, a majority were from a Muslim group known as the Rohingya, who are largely denied citizenship by the government and accused of immigrating to Burma illegally from Bangladesh, although many Rohingya families have lived in the country for generations.

Anti-Muslim sentiment has grown since last year, with inter-communal violence breaking out in parts of central, east and northwest Burma. Earlier this month, west Burma saw renewed violence near the town of Thandwe. The Muslims targeted in these bouts of violence were not Rohingya, but members of ethnic groups that are recognized as citizens.

Kyi Twe, a leader of a Rangoon-based Buddhist association that helps educate monks, said religious tensions were rising during Burma’s reform period.

“I do not have much comment on ASSK’s answers. Basically I agree with her,” said the secretary of the Shin Thar Ma Ne Dhamma Beikman Thar Tha Na Wun Saung Association, whichholds annual examinations for novice monks and promotes Buddhist teachings.

“But I have something to say about the originating factor of the problem. In older days, Burma’s Buddhists and Muslims lived hand in hand, peacefully, for several hundred years. The problem is the modern way of Muslims’ teachings and actions, which have become so aggressive that no Buddhist can tolerate it anymore.

“Of course the government needs a strong policy based on mutual respect, and also improvement of the economy. The second most important and urgent action for the government is to safeguard the borderline. Make sure that no more illegal foreigners are allowed to get in.”

Meanwhile, Rohingya activists denounced Suu Kyi’s comments to the BBC as “absurd.”

“The Nobel laureate’s description of anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar as a result of a ‘climate of fear’ is full of absurdity,” Wakar Uddin, director general of the Arakan Rohingya Union, said in a statement on Thursday. “The violence in Myanmar has always been one-sided where Rohingya and Myanmar Muslims are the victims.”

Chris Lewa, director of the Arakan Project, a humanitarian group which works for Rohingya rights, urged Suu Kyi to take more responsibility for speaking out against anti-Muslim violence. “It is easy to dismiss all responsibilities on the government,” she said. “All stakeholders, including the opposition and the NLD, have a role to play to address and challenge deep-seated prejudices against Muslims in Burmese society.”

Myo Win, a spokesman for the Burmese Muslim Association, said regardless of whether clashes in Arakan State could be classified as ethnic cleansing, it was clear that ethnic violence has occurred and tens of thousands of people had been displaced. “That unresolved problem still exists,” he said, adding that he agreed with Suu Kyi about the government’s need to take responsibility.

However, he was disappointed when the opposition leader, who—following a statement by the BBC that Muslims have borne the brunt of recent violence—responded by saying that many Buddhists had fled during military rule and were living in refugee camps in Thailand.

“I was hoping she would say Muslims have experienced the vast majority of suffering,” he said.

“Many Burmese Muslims have contributed to nation-building and have been well-integrated into society. This is also the case in the present time.”

By Washington Post Editorial Board

October 25, 2013

ON THURSDAY the United Nations’ designated human rights envoy to Burma will present to the General Assembly the final report of his six-year term. Tomás Ojea Quintana, a lawyer from Argentina, will celebrate the improvements he has seen over the course of hiseight visits to the Southeast Asian nation also known as Myanmar. But he also will describe how far the nation of some 50 million people needs to go. The United Nations, like the United States, should heed his message and continue to encourage Burma toward freedom and democracy.

Progress has been remarkable in what was until recently one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Hundreds of political prisoners have been freed. Independent media have sprung up. The political opposition, led by Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, has been allowed partway into government. Tentative cease-fire agreements have been signed with leaders of several ethnic groups with whom the regime had warred for decades.

“All of this is very good news,” Mr. Ojea Quintana, officially the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, told us recently. “At the same time, there are very serious human rights shortcomings, and this is what the international community needs to remember and focus on.”

In some ethnic areas, regime violence continues, and hundreds of thousands of uprooted people remain displaced. There has been no accountability for official crimes of killing, disappearances and torture. Some longtime political prisoners remain in prison; new ones — notably people who have peacefully protested land seizures — have been thrown in jail; and all releases have been conditional. Terrible violence by Buddhists, the majority in Burma, against Muslims has been officially tolerated, if not sanctioned. Many undemocratic laws remain in force, the judiciary is not independent and a promise to allow a U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights office to open has not been fulfilled. The constitution must be changed if there is any chance of a free and fair election in 2015, which Mr. Ojea Quintana called perhaps the most important question.

The General Assembly, after receiving Mr. Ojea Quintana’s report, will craft a new resolution. It should confirm the importance of U.N. engagement in Burma’s transition. Early next year, the U.N. Human Rights Council will decide whether to appoint a new rapporteur; the answer should clearly be yes.

Mr. Ojea Quintana told us that the reforms initiated by Burma’s longtime military rulers constitute “a transition that intends to bring commercial engagement,” and that the United States and European Union are focused on those commercial opportunities. He said he favors economic development if it proceeds fairly, with benefits widespread. But he said it’s too soon to say whether the transition also will bring democracy. “I would say this is a very good opportunity,” Mr. Ojea Quintana said. “But they will need all of the international community to help.”

By Emanuel Stoakes

VICE

October 25, 2013

"They told us, 'You are Bengalis – there is no such thing as the Rohingya,'" the imam recalled. "They said, 'If you claim that you are Rohingya, you will be thrown into the sea.'"

We were speaking in one of the internally displaced person (IDP) camps reserved for the Rohingya – Burma's persecuted Muslim minority – near the city of Sittwe in Burma's troubled Rakhine state. Last year, mob violence in the area left hundreds dead and well over 100,000 homeless, the vast majority of them Rohingya.

I was told that the alleged visits to the camps by members of the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP) – an ethnic nationalist political organisation, accompanied by police and the notorious, now-disbanded border force known as the Na Sa Ka – were linked to ongoing government efforts to document who was eligible for citizenship in preparation for an upcoming national census. The Rohingya, despite their presence in Burma for centuries, are officially regarded by the government as "illegal immigrants" from Bangladesh and, as such, are denied citizenship, rendering them a stateless people.

The pre-census measure has been criticised as an attempt to deepen efforts to totally marginalise the one million Rohingya residing in the country, which would be achieved by officially identifying them as foreign interlopers – "Bengalis" – who have no place in Burma and therefore no rights. When asked to condemn the violence against the Muslims on the Today Programme this morning, Aung San Suu Kyi demurred, equivocating with non-statements like, “I condemn hate of any kind.” She said, “This is what the world needs to understand: that the fear is not just on the side of the Muslims, but on the side of the Buddhists as well,” despite the fact that the Muslims make up four per cent of the population and have been targeted for violence. As a victimised minority, you know you’re in trouble when a Nobel Peace Prize laureate won’t speak out for you.

I asked the imam how many times these delegations had visited the camps. "Four times," he replied.

The repeated threats – issued against an already heavily traumatised minority by the RNDP, a powerful group in the region's political landscape – were obviously intended to intimidate. A report by Human Rights Watch identified the RNDP and Buddhist organisations as the chief orchestrators of last year's violence, in which a series of atrocities amounting to crimes against humanity were committed as part of an attempt to ethnically cleanse the Rohingya people from Burma, demonstrating their campaign against the group has been ongoing for quite some time.

The report also pointed the finger at agencies of the state (including the Na Sa Ka and other government-administered security forces) that had allegedly failed to protect Rohingya victims during the pogroms and, at times, directly participated in attacks against them.

"Before this, the Na Sa Ka ordered all of the Rohingya religious leaders to go to their main office [in the camps]," the Imam explained. "They said you cannot put the name Rohingya on citizenship registration papers but have to instead identify yourself as Bengali." If they did not do this, the religious leaders were warned, the authorities would allow local ethnic Rakhine mobs to attack them again.

The implication of his account was clear: that the RNDP and security forces under the command of the national government were collaborating to pressurise the Rohingya to officially deny their identity, resorting to aggressive coercion to get their way. What makes these particular claims so disturbingly plausible is that they parallel details of testimony I heard regarding similar incidents earlier in the year and echoed media reports of forced registration in the camps.

After speaking to the imam, I caught up with some of the newer arrivals to the already crowded IDP camp. Most of them had recently arrived from Aung Mingala, the only neighbourhood of nearby Sittwe that the Rohingya still occupied, albeit in total confinement behind well-guarded police check-points.

A government spokesman told the press that the new contingent had left their former home "voluntarily", but considering this is the same government that's been accused of complicity in the Rohingya's ethnic cleansing, it's hard not to be slightly suspicious of their claims.

"Rakhine state officials ordered us to move," one man told me. "They said if you stay in Aung Mingala you will get no food there – life will better in the camps. [But] we haven’t been given any food – we just live off aid from other people here." This was met with emphatic nods of agreement from anyone listening nearby.

On this evidence alone, it's pretty difficult to shake the idea that these people had been purposefully duped. I asked an elder from the group how he felt about moving and whether he was happy in his new home. His blunt response – "We were forced here" – didn't leave much room for interpretation.

"Some of the Rohingya community leaders who co-operate with the military and Hlun Thin [riot police] came and ordered me to go. People whose houses were burnt down in the violence last year were told they had to go to the camps," he explained.

"I am unhappy here," said another elder – an incredibly frustrated woman – as we trudged through the mud and the rain. “My [community] moved here so I came with them. They said we could get more food – what could I do?"

And had there been more food, I asked. "No!" she replied, gesturing as if it was obvious from the surroundings.

In another part of the camp, I spoke to a community leader who had left Aung Mingala several months before the new group arrived. He told me that while he was still in Sittwe in April of 2012 – just after the government had announced it would hold a census – Deputy Immigration Minister Kyaw Kyaw Win had visited and explained that he was under pressure from the RNDP to determine who among the Rohingya were eligible for citizenship. At that point, no threats were made, but the minister reportedly told community elders, "The union [national, as opposed to state-level] government could not use the word Rohingya."

His statement corroborated the account of a source based in Naypyidaw, the nation’s administrative capital, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity about the government’s citizenship validation drive. "Kyaw Kyaw Win visited Aung Mingala just before things went bad," he said.

The source, who is the close to various MPs in the national parliament, informed me that Immigration Minister Khin Yi had admitted that the pre-census measures targeting the Rohingya were undertaken by the government "because of Rakhine complaints". He also observed that the RNDP have long wanted to excise the Rohingya from their community, and "now the government has given them the green light".

"There are at least 50 [Rohingya] mass graves in Rakhine state. Many more than people think," he added, grimly. So far, only a few have been reported.

Phil Robertson from Human Rights Watch believes, "It’s been clear all along that Burmese government policy, at both the union and state level, is all about denigrating and destroying the Rohingyas’ self-realisation as a distinct ethnic group. In this, the ruling RNDP is a primary protagonist in this war on identity. Which is not at all surprising, since Human Rights Watch also found that local leaders of the RNDP were actively involved in planning and implementing ethnic cleansing violence against the Rohingya."

He added that, despite their behaviour, "The union government continues to happily devolve responsibility for handling the Rohingya to the [RNDP-dominated] state government."

Such a practice does appear to indicate, at the very least, tacit government acquiescence to the RNDP’s anti-Rohingya agenda, and judging from the testimonial evidence detailed above, perhaps even more.

Regardless of who is ultimately responsible, the question remains as to what the ultimate purpose of this apparent ethnic cleansing effort against the Rohingya is. Visible mass-murder doesn't seem likely. It's far more likely instead that the Rohingya will simply be left struggling in limbo, while more and more of them are rounded up and sent to the camps, in which malnutrition, endemic misery and disease prompt those with relative means to leave the country as soon as possible.

Not long after returning home, I spoke to another anonymous source who said NGO workers attending a co-ordination meeting with the local government had revealed that some or all of the aid to the Rohingya was due to be restricted or even terminated, as the period of "resettlement and aid" had been formally announced to be over. The same sources had revealed to them that officials intend to set-up police stations in every significant block of the camp to keep an eye on everything the Rohingya are doing. 

"Restrictions on journalists entering the camps have been tightened even further," they added.

A few weeks later, a woman in her nineties was stabbed to death by Rakhine mobs. For now, the Rohingya are stuck between a rock and a hard place, with little chance of relief; either they can stay in their homes and risk murder, or flee to ghettos that are becoming disease-ridden and dangerous.

Follow Emanuel on Twitter: @EmanuelStoakes

Date: October 24, 2013

PRESS RELEASE

Arakan Rohingya Union Denounces the Misguided Remarks by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on Human Rights and Security of Rohingya and Myanmar Muslims in Burma

The Arakan Rohingya Union and the Rohingya people worldwide unequivocally condemn the hypocrisy exhibited by the Noble Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi during her interviews in the media in United Kingdom on October 24, 2013. The Noble Laureate’s description of anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar as result of “climate of fear” is full of absurdity.

The Arakan Rohingya Union calls on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to publicly retract the false statements and tell the community of the world the undeniable facts on plights of Rohingya and the violence against Muslims in Burma. The Arakan Rohingya Union demands Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to stick to the principles of democracy and human rights, retract her statements, and rightfully acknowledge that:

1) The violence in Myanmar has always been one-sided where Rohingya and Myanmar Muslims are the victims.

2) The ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims in Arakan is in existence in Arakan for nearly half a century and it is the root cause of the problem.

3) There are over 140,000 Rohingya and Muslim IDPs, and Rakhine IDP camps are non-existent in reality.

4) The “Global Muslim Power” is not a worldwide perception; rather a perception of her own.

5) She unequivocally condemns preaching and instigation of hate by Ashin Wirathu.

6) The question from the media was directly posed to her - a member of the opposition; therefore, it is not the job of the Government of Burma to answer the question on her behalf.

Being a victim of the dictatorship in Burma for several years, the Noble Laureate has insulted the Noble Peace Prize itself and the Institution that the community of the world reveres. The Arakan Rohingya Union appeals to the international community to speak out against the hypocrisy of the Noble Laureate evidently filled with racism and bigotry against Rohingya and Myanmar Muslims in Burma. 

Dr. Wakar Uddin

Director General

Arakan Rohingya Union

By Press TV

October 24, 2013

Aung San Suu Kyi is lauded as an international champion of human rights, welcomed at the home of the British Prime minister but for Rohinghya campaigners, her attention to abuses being suffered closer to home has been absent. They say it’s not too late for the country’s most prominent opposition leader to speak up on their behalf.

Myanmar’s military junta is desperately trying to be reintegrated in the international community. Activists say the visit of prominent opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to London could be critical in helping to raise the issue of the human rights abuses being suffered by the Rohingya people. Whether she chooses to do so is another matter entirely. 

The UN refers it to ‘as one of the most persecuted groups in the world and the hope is global attention will bring a halt to the rights abuses being suffered where scores have been killed and injured with thousands displaced. 

Over 1.5 million Rohingyas live outside Myanmar having escaped a country that does not even accept them as legitimate citizens. Now, rights groups say figures like Aung San Suu Kyi have a moral obligation to press the issue with the international community to help the remaining Rohingya Muslims inside Myanmar before more blood is spilt.

By AFP

October 24, 2013

TOKYO: An asylum-seeker collapsed and died after staff at a Japanese immigration centre failed to call for help, allegedly because the doctor was having lunch, a pressure group said on Thursday.

Anwar Hussin, a member of Myanmar's Rohingya ethnic group, fell ill shortly after he was detained on October 9, according to People's Forum on Burma, a Japan-based NGO headed by a Japanese lawyer.

Citing the 57-year-old's cousin, the group said Hussin had been complaining of a headache all morning and fell unconscious as he began eating lunch in his cell.

Fellow detainees - seven people of different nationalities - called for help because he was vomiting and having spasms, the NGO said.

Detention centre staff rejected their requests that a doctor be called, saying Hussin was just "having a seizure" and that the duty medic was on his lunch break, the group said, citing interviews with detainees.

A doctor was summoned 51 minutes after Hussin's collapse, according to a timeline given to his cousin by the centre.

Staff made an emergency call four minutes after the doctor's arrival - 55 minutes after being made aware of the problem, the timeline showed.

Hussin died in hospital on October 14, it said.

A spokeswoman for the Tokyo Immigration Bureau said a man in his 50s from Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, died of subarachnoid haemorrhage - a stroke - after collapsing in the detention centre, confirming the dates given by the pressure group.

But she declined to confirm or deny the claims made by the NGO over how long it took for the doctor to be called.

"We refrain from disclosing details because it concerns private matters," said the spokeswoman.

"We are aware that some people have complained the man was neglected for some time," she said, adding the bureau believes staff handled the case appropriately. She said officials had explained the situation to the man's surviving family in Japan.

The People's Forum on Burma, which supports democratisation of Myanmar and aids refugees from the country when they arrive in Japan, disputes this.

"The bureau did not inform the family of (Hussin's) hospitalisation. It was learnt from other detainees," said a spokeswoman.

Immigration officials gave few details until two days after Hussin's death, the spokeswoman said, and then only when his cousin repeatedly pressed them.

Hussin came to Japan in 2006 and made two applications for asylum, both of which were rejected, according to the group, which said he was waiting for the result of his second appeal when he was detained.

It was not immediately possible to independently verify the claims.

Japan places tight restrictions on the number of immigrants and asylum-seekers it accepts.

According to figures provided by the Justice Ministry, in 2012, 2,545 people applied for asylum, of whom 368 were from Myanmar - the second largest nationality group after the Turkish.

Japan accepted 18 refugees during the year. The Rohingya - described by the UN as one of the most persecuted minorities on the planet - face travel restrictions, forced labour and limited access to healthcare and education in Myanmar, rights groups say.

Myanmar views its population of roughly 800,000 Muslim Rohingya as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and denies them citizenship.

By Vivian Tan

UNHCR
October 24, 2013

MEDAN, Indonesia – Mohammed Karim* is no rolling stone, but forced by circumstances, the 36-year-old Rohingya refugee has been on the move for nearly half his life.

Despite living in five countries, surviving a near-death experience and years of exploitation, he has still not found a place to call home for his family. His unfortunate experience illustrates the need to address the push and pull factors that are causing people to be displaced many times over.

Born and bred in Maungdaw, in Myanmar's northern Rakhine state, Karim used to work as a mason. "At the time, the military was building a big tower in my area, and I was picked to work on it," he said. "In my two weeks there I received no pay and no food. One night, I escaped. I tried to go home but met my father along the way. He said the military had come looking for me. He gave me money and told me to escape."

In 1997, Karim, then 19, fled across the border to Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh. For three months, he worked in a tea shop. His employer provided food and shelter, but refused to pay his wages. Karim moved on to India briefly before deciding to go to Myanmar's then-capital, Yangon. He soon realized that he could not stay without documents, and took a boat to Thailand where he performed manual labour for several months. With the help of his employer, he went to Malaysia, where he registered with UNHCR and worked informally on construction sites for five years.

Despite having refugee documentation, he said he faced constant harassment. "One night I was arrested and they beat me on the back with a rattan cane. It was just one time, but it was unbearable, devastating," he said. "After my release eight months later, I went to Indonesia where I heard there were boats going to Australia."

He arrived in Indonesia in 2008, and arranged to join a smuggler's boat with 40 others bound for Australia. "The boat capsized around Kupang [in Indonesia's West Timor]," he recalled. "Only nine of us survived. We drifted for 12 hours on the sea, holding onto plastic fuel drums. We reached a small Indonesian island and found some locals. They gave us food, shelter, and called the police."

Karim was held at the Kupang immigration detention centre before being released to community housing in Medan on Indonesia's Sumatra island. After a few months, he went to Malaysia again, this time for an arranged marriage to a Rohingya woman whose father he knew.

By June 2011, the couple was back in Indonesia. In March this year, they welcomed a baby daughter. The young family is now hosted in community housing run by the International Organization (IOM) for Migration in Medan. They say they are getting by with refugee documentation provided by UNHCR and a monthly allowance from IOM. But they know this arrangement is temporary and feel stressed not knowing what is next.

"Killing time is difficult. Every day we eat, sleep and gossip. We talk about our lives, our future. It's hopeless, we've been here a long time," said Karim, his face etched with frustration and fatigue.

At a recent regional meeting in Jakarta on the irregular movement of people, the UN refugee agency urged countries in the region to commit to a regional "road map" for action. This would bring together countries of origin, transit and destination working collaboratively to address humanitarian and protection challenges as experienced by refugees like Karim through his long journey across the region in search of protection.

"Unresolved refugee situations, especially where there are no or limited options for self-reliance, often lead to irregular movements further afield," said UNHCR Director of International Protection Volker Turk during the Jakarta meeting. "The best way to stabilize populations where they are, while also focusing on practical concerns of states that are currently hosting refugees and asylum-seekers, is to improve their conditions of stay whilst working out solutions."

Host countries can do so by giving refugees and asylum seekers access to basic services and to legal work. Harmonizing such reception and stay arrangements across countries will help to reduce the need for onward movement while providing an effective platform for refugees to contribute to their host communities. At the same time, there must be safer and more predictable ways of finding long-term solutions such as "in-country solutions" where refugees find themselves, voluntary repatriation, or resettlement to a third country.

For Karim, returning to Myanmar is not an option and his hopes of resettlement are fading after two years. But he is trying to stay grounded: "After getting married and having a child, I want to live, to survive. I'm trying to find the meaning of life."

His wife Ranjani, 22, added, "I hope we get a safe country to live in. I dream that my daughter can go to school and be a proper human being."

* Name changed for protection reasons

By IRIN News

October 24, 2013

BUENOS AIRES - Myanmar’s government has signed individual ceasefire agreements with 14 main non-state armed groups since 2011, and is pressing ahead with plans for a national ceasefire agreement, originally scheduled for the end of October, but now delayed. The most recent round of negotiations with northern Myanmar's Kachin Independence Organization (KIO) brought further hope of nationwide reconciliation. 

But the government faces ongoing tension in western Rakhine State between ethnic Rakhines (primarily Buddhist) and Rohingyas (mostly Muslims), continued fighting in Kachin State which in the past year has left more than 83,000 people displaced in 42 camps, and allegations of human rights abuses against the country’s ethnic minorities. 

Following his most recent mission to Myanmar in August 2013, IRIN met Tomás Ojea Quintana , the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, in his home city of Buenos Aires, to discuss the prospects for a nationwide ceasefire; segregation in Rakhine State, and allegations of army or police brutality against Rohingyas, as well as the implications of the transition to democracy for the country’s ethnic minorities. 

IRIN: Given the history of broken ceasefires between non-state armed groups and the Myanmar government, what assurance is there of lasting peace with the latest round of peace talks? 

Quintana: Now what is totally different is that it is a civilian government in transition to a democracy. As a human rights rapporteur, I would not say that it is a democracy yet. Democracy will take a long time. But it is a civilian government that is progressively gaining respect, particularly from Western countries. 

This respect has given the civilian government some kind of [room for] manoeuvre to have this discussion with the ethnic armed groups [to disarm], which is of course very important [for the peace process]. 

The ethnic groups, all of them, have reservations about where this might go in terms of lasting peace, in terms of receiving the benefits from development, and in terms of their participation in the exploitation of natural resources. 

They have reservations in terms of the political structure of the country, which currently does not [allow] ethnic groups the participation they would like to have [in governing themselves], and regarding their [own political autonomy]. 

Nonetheless the government has signed [peace deals] with most of the NSA [non-state actor] groups. There is only one group, the Kachin, the KIA [Kachin Independence Army], which is still holding conversations. They have recently signed an agreement... which is not exactly a ceasefire... but it goes in that direction. 

And now, after my last mission [in August 2013]... I talked to the president and [his] advisers who are in charge of the peace process and they are planning to hold a national ceasefire agreement by October 2013. 

IRIN: How would a national ceasefire differ from individual ceasefires? 

Quintana: It will be a very important message to the international community that all [of] Myanmar is united towards the very important objective of peace. A lot of pressure is being put on the KIA [to sign]. 

The problem... is how these ceasefires will be implemented on the ground and how they will reflect the interests of all the villagers living in remote areas. We don't see a comprehensive plan to implement these decisions. For example, one of the issues is what will happen to the [Burmese] refugees in Thailand? If you were a refugee would you want to go back? 

There is no transparency, no plans [for implementation]. Nobody knows about the problem of the landmines, the problems with the land. There is a lot of land confiscation. It is a really serious problem how to move from a ceasefire - from stopping the bullets from flying - to something different, to build a united country. That is still very difficult and will take a long time. 

IRIN: What are the barriers in Kachin State, the only place where the government has not reached an agreement with rebels? 

Quintana: It is not clear. The KIA allegations are that the military is not actually following the decisions of the civilian president and there is still a militarization in the area, which they won't accept. The Kachin community in particular has a strong stance on the possibility for [it] to run [its] own businesses in Kachin State [instead of competing with the military for business and income]. 

The government, though, is not opening up any spaces for these kinds of issues to be included in the dialogue so far. That is why it has been quite difficult to reach an agreement. 

IRIN: How representative are non-state armed groups of people in their communities? 

Quintana: That’s a difficult question because there is not a formal democracy and no formal electoral process, so how do you say to what extent they are representative. 

What I have seen...is that ordinary people in villages really don't understand and don't believe that ceasefires and peace processes will bring concrete benefits to them. That is a problem. The leaders of ethnic groups need to have better connections with their own people.

And the same with the refugees. When you talk to the refugees about returning and the information they have in respect to what is going on in Myanmar, they don't know. They don't trust. They still fear a lot. It seems that the ethnic leaders need more work in this respect. 

At the same time, the people and the ethnic army leaders have faced oppression from the military regime for decades and that is very, very tough to lead, and to recover from that, and to try to [be] more organized with your communities is not easy. 

IRIN: What can be done to engage communities more in peace talks? 

Quintana: The government and the ethnic leaders are doing a lot... to settle the problems at the top, at the highest levels. But they need to involve the communities in a more widespread and comprehensive plan of action. You don't see the communities being involved. And that has been the practice in Myanmar for decades. I mean that is how the military operated... giving instructions and expecting instructions to be implemented - period - without consulting. It’s part of a historical problem in Myanmar. It is still there. 

IRIN: And what about the Rakhine commission established by the Myanmar government? What are your thoughts on its recommendations on ways to prevent violence?

Quintana: They [the commission] never addressed what happened - the human rights abuses. This is a clear shortcoming and it is one of my concerns. And I am calling for the [UN Human Rights Council] to continue to address this. The allegations of what happened are very serious. Widespread human rights abuses, torture of hundreds of prisoners in Buthidaung [a prison in Rakhine State holding an estimated 1,000 Rohingyas], a place I have visited, and the government has not done anything about that. The situation in Rakhine is quite fragile and critical.

IRIN: What is the potential of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to help mitigate what is now a regional crisis? 

Quintana: ASEAN countries don't want to get involved. Based on the non-interference provision of ASEAN charter, they do not want to interfere. There is no potential [for ASEAN] as a regional mechanism [to pressure the Myanmar government to resolve the conflict]. I tried many times to address ASEAN, to let them know they have an important role to play... It is becoming a regional, not a national problem. 

IRIN: Is the government putting any foundation in place to allow Rohingyas to return to their homes in northern Rakhine State? 

Quintana: No... The original places of the Rohingyas are being used for some other purposes by the government. 

IRIN: How can the humanitarian community support shelter for the displaced? 

Quintana: There is a dilemma because the [displaced] people still need access to humanitarian aid. So if you do not provide that because you say you do not agree with [the government’s] policies of making settlements permanent, then you are not delivering the aid. So you have a problem there. And the humanitarian agencies or donors try not to get involved in the political arena of a country. 

IRIN: What are the risks of long-term segregation of Buddhists and Rohingyas, where government- monitored encampment have cut displaced Rohingyas from their land and livelihoods? 

Quintana: It's going to be a disaster because many of the areas that you can look into in respect to the Rohingyas, how Rohingyas are treated, you always see obstacles, limitations, and intentions to not help them at all. 

IRIN: What role can civil society play in reconciliation? 

Quintana: I hope they are included as participants in the implementation of the [ceasefire] agreement. That is the role they need to play but that is the role that their own leaders need to address with them [ethnic communities]. The[se communities’] leaders need to say that they want their own people to be involved. 

My job as a rapporteur is to say, ‘You are an ethnic general of armed forces. I understand... you have been fighting for years against your army. But now you need to play some other role and let your people participate.’ It will take time… 

[During my] last mission my convoy was attacked by Buddhist mobs [where I was addressing the issue of communal violence]. And the police stood by so it was kind of planned somehow... It was more than tense. I was frightened. But I am still holding the mandate [as Myanmar's special rapporteur on human rights].