August 31, 2012
By Dr. Habib Siddiqui
[Note: Conference Closing speech delivered at the International
Conference on “Contemplating Burma’s Rohingya People’s Future in
Reconciliation and (Democratic) Reform,” held on August 15, 2012 at the
Thammasat University, Bangkok.]
Is there any solution to this problem facing the Rohingya and other
‘nameless’ minorities in Myanmar who are threatened to extinction? I
believe there is. I call it the carrot and stick policy. I shall come to
this later.
Rohingya Elimination is a Myanmar National Project
Burma
Millions of ethnic minorities are now internally displaced as a
result of forced migration or what is called the ‘push’ factors. A
larger number has been forced out to seek asylum outside as unwanted
refugees in places like Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Malaysia,
Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It is tragic and its continuation is not
desirable for the entire region.
In his book – Worse Than War – Daniel Jonah Goldhagen says that
during mass murders, the murderers themselves, their supporters and
those who wish to stand idly by practice linguistic camouflage. And this
has been the case with the apartheid regime in Myanmar when it comes to
its national project towards exterminating or purging out the
Rohingyas.
Myanmar government wants to portray the Rohingyas as outsiders who
had intruded into the country illegally. This small minority of probably
less than 5%, living in a country of some 56 million, is even depicted
as a demographic bomb, threatening Buddhist lifestyle. I did not know
Buddhism is that frail. Funny that the Thein Sein regime is even touted
as a reform-minded government! If this be the attitude towards a
persecuted minority one wonders how appalling it must have been during
previous military regimes.
For decades what used to be whispered (and/or unheard by others) in
government circles before the latest pogrom was unleashed against the
Rohingyas of Myanmar has now become somewhat audible for all to hear.
Their recent statements clearly show that for the past half a century,
the Burmese (Myanmar) government ultimately has been the author of its
own actions – their genocidal campaigns, their repeated pogroms, and
their apartheid character to eliminate the Rohingya people one way or
another. It is this policy which has led to forced exodus of more than a
million of Rohingyas, let alone the inhuman condition that their people
are subjected to day in and day out inside Myanmar.
As we have witnessed in the past with the Jews of Germany, Bosnian
Muslims of former Yugoslavia, Kosovars of Kosovo of former Greater
Serbia (and former Yugoslavia), and victims of Rwanda and Burundi, any
time such mass extermination or eliminationist projects are launched, it
is always about societies and their cultures that contribute to the
circumstances that produce extermination plausible as a group or
national project — a project that is led by the state, supported by a
good percentage of the nation or its dominant group or groups, and which
employs large institutional and material resources.
With the current ethnic cleansing in Arakan against the Rohingyas, we
are once again reminded of this ugly truth that it is a national
project in Myanmar that is led by a criminal neo-Nazi regime where a
good percentage of Rakhine and Burman majority — brainwashed by their
own brand of Julius Streicher in the likes of (late) Aye Kyaw, Aye Chan,
Khin Maung Saw and others – are willing participants. The extremist
Rakhine politicians and Buddhist monks play their respective roles
providing the justification and necessary institutional and material
resources for such extermination projects.
It was all too natural, therefore, that Daw Suu Kyi and her NLD party
members did not condemn this pogrom against the Rohingya, nor did
others of the so-called democracy movement. They may not even realize
how racists they are, and that is what such eliminationist national
projects do to its people.
Dr. Maung Zarni of London School of Economics, who is an expert on
Burma, recently said, “The racism against the Muslims in general, in
Burma is pervasive across the majority, minority, civilian, military and
class lines. And that is one of the scariest and most troubling aspects
of this social transition in Burma. And the West has not spoken out
against this issue, because the West is desperate to push its own
strategic and commercial agenda in Burma. So what we have heard over the
past one year or so, is that ‘Burma is a modern transitional
democracy.’ And so now, the Burmese democratic transition is bringing
about not necessarily concrete and irreversible democratisation process
but the most ugly racism the world is witnessing.”
In such national elimination projects, as noted by Goldhagen, the
targeted groups come to be seen as deleterious to the well-being of the
executioner (often a majority) group. In some instances people deem the
group’s perniciousness so great that they want to eliminate it. “In some
of the cases such beliefs become socially powerful and coalesce into an
explicit public and political conversation about elimination.”
And that is what has happened with the targeted Rohingya people. As
part of a very calculated, sinister plan, the unfortunate murder of a
Rakhine woman was used as the backdrop to simmer hatred and start the
latest extermination campaign against the Rohingya people. It is not
difficult to understand why the alleged criminal conveniently committed
suicide in the prison so that no one would ever know the truth and
whether or not he was used as a pawn in what was to follow. Thus,
instead of a much anticipated inquiry report on grisly murder of ten
Burmese (not Rohingya) Muslims in early June, we heard President Thein
Sein’s statement that the Rohingyas cannot live inside Myanmar; they are
unwanted.
As I have noted earlier, crimes at individual levels happen in all
societies. But only in eliminationist projects are such crimes exploited
to justify elimination of an entire targeted group. To do this,
the Myanmar regime has employed all five principal forms of elimination –
transformation, repression, expulsion, prevention of reproduction, and
extermination of the Rohingya people. In spite of world condemnation,
the regime, once again backed by its racist monks and mobs, therefore,
refuses to allow outside inquiries and refuses to provide necessary food
and shelter to the suffering Rohingya victims in this hot summer month
of fasting.
President General Thein Sein has publicly stated that the Rohingya
people should be expelled and the UN should take their charge as
refugees, a call which was promptly rejected by the UNHCR. This attitude
of the Myanmar government is worse than racial discrimination. It is an
apartheid policy that has no place in the 21st century. The regime has
been using the 1982 Citizenship Law as a convenient camouflage (a cover)
to hide its sinister plan to depopulate Myanmar of any Muslims. Plain
and simple! Let’s call a spade a spade.
The military regimes that preceded Thein Sein have been practicing
this Burmanization and Buddhization policy of the country for the last
half a century. Soon after assuming power in 1962, General Ne Win’s
regime instituted the ‘Four Cuts’ policy, aimed at cutting off targeted
groups from food, money, intelligence, and recruits. Even though Muslims
of Myanmar, unlike other ethnic groups, were not part of any insurgent
group, they did not skip persecution. Ne Win quickly nationalized all
businesses and Muslims were the biggest losers. No compensation was
offered by the Burmese authorities. He also purged the armed forces and
the civil bureaucracy of Muslims. Many fled (including those with
Burmese or Karen spouses, known as the Zerbadi) to neighboring East
Pakistan (now Bangladesh), West Pakistan (now Pakistan), Thailand, UAE
and Saudi Arabia.
In the face of international criticism, the Burmese regime began to
deny the existence of the Four Cuts policy in the late 1980s; however,
evidence suggests that it remains a policy and practice even today.
Anti-Muslim riots took place in Mandalay in 1997 and again in 2001. Some
two dozen campaigns have also been directed against the Rohingya people
to exterminate or evict them from their ancestral homeland in Arakan.
The real power in Myanmar still lies with the generals. President is
their front man. They would continue to make sure that they control
government and that the head of the state is a Burman from the majority
race. To maintain their tight grip of power, they have created a toxic
cocktail of ultra-nationalism (which is pure racism) and religious
intolerance (which is bigotry) where the government patronized bare-feet
monks are the flag-bearers of this new Myanmar. It is no accident that
Nazi insignia – signs and symbols – are hot sales amongst the Rakhines
and many Burmans today. They see themselves as the Fascist Germans of
the Hitler-era ready to weed out their ‘Jewish peril’ – the Rohingyas
totally. Even the so-called democracy movement icons and leaders have
proven to be closet racists and bigots who approve of this new
Myanmarism. Indeed, with the advent of a semblance of democracy,
majority Buddhists feel they now have a license to kill and persecute
minorities. This is tyranny of the majority at its worst.
Education
As I have shown earlier, the activities of the Myanmar regime since
the days of Ne Win have been to heighten animosity among various
communities, using one group against another. What goes on in the center
by ultranationalists is followed in toto by the racists at the local
state level. A transition to democracy alone has not and will not be
enough to prevent the people tearing each other apart, irrespective of
who forms the central government and whether or not it chooses to behave
like a federal union with certain level of autonomy for each state. The
first and biggest step in bringing about an end to the racism problem
is to admit that it exists and to recognize its scale. Most racists
inside Myanmar today are unaware of their despicable racism.
These leaders of Myanmar are also oblivious of the fact that
citizenship based on ethnicity or race is an alien concept in the 21st
century. Ethnicity based on race was an imaginary concept foisted by the
imperialists to divide and rule, and cannot be used as a criterion for
determining citizenship rights in our time. As such, the first thing the
current regime can do is to bring its laws at par with international
laws by amending the 1982 Citizenship Law so that Rohingyas and other
minorities are accepted as equal citizens in Myanmar.
The current Rakhine-Rohingya tension can end, by partly expelling a
few false notions in the minds of Rakhine and Burmese people that is
embedded by text books and sustained false propaganda, authored and
nurtured by the military regime and their paid historians and agents. If
they instead go to older books of history, they would find not only the
fact that as indigenous people the ties of the Rohingya people to the
soil of Arakan is even older than the Buddhist Rakhines but also that as
part of the larger Burmese Muslim community they partnered with Aung
San in the independence struggle for Burma. As I have amply demonstrated
in my work on demography they were not implanted by the British.
Because of their racial similarity with the Indians, they are often
times falsely equated with the Hindu Chettiars or Marwaris and other
Indian Hindu money-lenders or absentee landlords during the British
colonial period.
What is even more ridiculous is that they are perceived as
collaborators of the British Raj before and during the Second World War.
In 1920s and 1930s, when Burma witnessed a series of anti-Indian
pogroms, often led by Buddhist monks, such were crushed by colonial
troops – mainly Indian Gurkha and Sikh (and not Rohingya) and ethnic
Karen and Kachin soldiers. In 1942 when Japan invaded Burma, the
majority Burmans and the racists within the Rakhine community aligned
themselves with the invading Japanese forces and massacred more than a
hundred thousand Rohingyas in Kyaktaw, Mrohaung, Kyataw, Rambree and
Paktaw where 350 villages were burned down – souring the relationship
between the two communities for decades to come. But as events unfolded,
it did not take long for Aung San and his comrades to realize that
Japan had no intention of liberating Burma; they were simply used as
pawns in Japan’s selfish imperial scheme. To this day, however, no
apology has been issued for such an atrocity committed against the
Rohingya and other affected minorities.
Abandoning All forms of Prejudice, Racism and Bigotry
The current antagonisms are compounded by the false notion that
national success lies in racial purity and not in plurality. As I have
shown earlier, the Rakhine Buddhist leadership, fascinated with Japanese
imperial model of racial exclusiveness, wants to create a mono-ethnic
state without any other race or religion. A visit to the USA and many
parts of the Western Europe is sure to challenge that false notion and
show that it is diversity of the workforce that is catalyzing success in
our time. To quote Dr. Fareed Zakaria (of the Time Magazine and CNN) on
this issue: “This infusion of talent, hard work and patriotism has kept
the country vital for the past two centuries. And if we can renew it,
it will keep America vital in the 21st century as well.”
Then there is the overwhelming belief that Rohingya Muslims, who
probably constitute only 5% of the entire Myanmar population (counting
even the exiled ones), are a demographic threat to the nation of 56
million. Sitting next door to China (with a population of 1.3 billion)
and Bangladesh (150 million) where the population density is rather very
high, most Rakhines and Buddhist Burmese assume that those people would
one day take over their country unless they come hard on the Rohingya
Kala and the Chinese Tayut. Thus the proximate linguistic (although very
few Bangladeshis, even Chittagonians, can understand the Rohingyalish
language spoken by the Rohingya people) and cultural links of the
Rohingya with the Bangali makes the Rakhine and Burmese population feel
threatened with dismemberment of their country – under pressure from
Bangladeshi citizens. Bangladesh, thus, needs to be constantly cognizant
of, and concerned with this Burmese/Rakhine apprehension, without
sacrificing the right to voice support in a friendly way for the human
rights of the Rohingya minority.
It is worth pointing out that democracy minus tolerance leads to
fascism. If democracy is the rule of the majority, the protection of
minorities against injustice and hegemony is not a matter of empathy of
the majority. Human rights in a democracy are held to be inalienable –
no human being could be deprived of those rights in a democracy by the
will of the majority of the sovereign people. This basic governance norm
of democracy seems to have been forgotten in recent months by the
so-called reform government of Thein Sein, and the members of the new
parliament which includes Daw Suu Kyi and her NLD members.
Most Rakhine and Burmese chauvinists seem allergic to the name
Rohingya, claiming that the name did not exist before the 1950s. They
are wrong. There are written records in English dating back to the late
18th century, let alone the writings of Muslim poets of the early 17th
century showing the name Rohingya. In his treatise, “A Comparative
Vocabulary of Some of the Languages Spoken in the Burma Empire,” written
in 1799, British doctor Francis Buchanan wrote, “I shall now add three
dialects, spoken in the Burma Empire, but evidently derived from the
language of the Hindu nation. The first is that spoken by the
Mohammedans, who have long settled in Arakan, and who call themselves
Rooinga (Rohingya), or natives of Arakan.” The Classical Journal,
September and December, 1811, Vol. IV, London, mentions the name –
‘Rooinga’ in pages 107, 348 and 535. The name Rooinga can also be found
Linguarum totius orbis Index of 1815 by Joanne Severino Vatero, Berlin.
But more importantly, these chauvinists ought to know that the most
egregious denial of human rights is to deny the right of others to
define and interpret their own identity, because this is a denial of
human freedom and human dignity. If the Rohingyas have chosen that name,
it is absolutely their right to be known as such. No one should have
the audacity to deny that right. It is this fact alone which has
rendered derogatory names like the ‘Black niggers (or Negro)’ or ‘Red
Indians’ totally unacceptable today. These people are known today as the
‘African (or Afro-) Americans’ and ‘Native Americans’, respectively.
The Burmese and Rakhine people better get used to this naming
convention, as much as their own names have evolved.
If they had studied history objectively they would have known that
history of the geographical region we call the South Asia including what
is today called Myanmar, which is sandwiched between South Asia and
South-east Asia, has no one beginning, no one chronology, no single plot
or narrative. This essential fact is recognized by all great historians
— Professors David Ludden, Abdul Karim, Romila Thapar, R.S. Sharma and
many others — who spent their lifetimes to study the region. To these
unbiased and genuine historians of the ancient India and Burma, the
region did not have a singular history, but many histories, with
indefinite, contested origins and with countless separate trajectories
that multiply the more we learn about the region.
Obviously, such an understanding and analysis of history is unpopular
and loathsome with communal, racist, xenophobic regimes and their
propagandists and vanguards. The latter bigots would rather have it
their way in which the minorities or the have-nots in power simply did
neither exist nor mattered. To them, the affected persecuted people just
appeared in the recent scene through mere accident of history like
those possible through a magic lantern! That is the level of their
disgusting chauvinism, which is often reflected through the claims and
counter-claims of pen-pushing chauvinists and zealots of the Rakhine
state of Myanmar.
Racism is a curse and must be fought relentlessly; otherwise for
multi-ethnic and multi-religious countries like Myanmar (a hybrid state
of states) it will tear it apart. Freedom-loving and democratic-minded
opposition groups working outside Myanmar, therefore, must respect each
other and shun racism and bigotry. It won’t be easy and fast though.
After all, it has been in their political-DNA for way too long, nurtured
and nourished by promoters of hatred and intolerance.
They must believe and respect all the Articles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. That means, they must treat others that
look different with respect and dignity. They must bury their
pre-colonial chauvinist mindset that is not conducive to our time when
increasingly human rights, freedom and democracy are all equally
important. They should draw the lessons from former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda. If they fail to do so, Burma will remain a country at war with
itself, whether or not today’s regime is replaced by another government,
civil or otherwise.
In the context of Arakan, it is important that there be a dialogue
between the leaderships of the majority Rakhine and the minority
Rohingya to bury prejudice and ease tension for a peaceful and
respectable co-existence as equal citizens.
The Stick
As I have noted elsewhere, for every ideology, there is always an
ideologue. This role is often shared by intellectuals, who are the real
‘brains’ that energize the wheel of the movement. So, as we have Aye
Kyaw and Aye Chan (author of xenophobic works like the “Who are the
Rohingyas?” and “The Influx Viruses”) among the Rakhaings, steering the
wheel of intolerance against the Rohingyas of Myanmar today, Julius
Streicher (1885 – 1946) was the ideologue responsible for breeding
hatred against the Jews of Germany.
Julius Streicher was a prominent Nazi prior to and during World War
II. In 1923 Streicher founded the racist newspaper, Der Stürmer of which
he was editor. The newspaper become a part of the Nazi propaganda
machine spreading deep hatred of everything and everyone Jewish.
Streicher argued in the newspaper that the Jews had contributed to
the depression, unemployment, and inflation in Germany which afflicted
the country during the 1920′s. He claimed that Jews were white-slavers
and were responsible for over 90 percent of the prostitutes in the
country. Eventually the newspaper reached a peak circulation of 480,000
in 1935. After the Nazi party was reorganized, Streicher became the
party leader of Franconia. After 1933, he practically ruled the city of
Nuremberg and was nicknamed “King of Nuremberg” and the “Beast of
Franconia.” His publishing firm released three anti-Semitic books for
children, including the 1938 Der Giftpilz (The Poison Mushroom), one of
the most widespread pieces of propaganda, which purported to warn about
insidious dangers Jews posed by using the metaphor of an attractive and
yet deadly mushroom.
On May 23, 1945, two weeks after Germany’s surrender, Streicher was
captured by the Americans. Chief Justice Jackson, chief counsel for the
prosecution, spoke to the tribunal and explained to them the importance
of what they were doing. He said, to paraphrase, that: “We are handing
these defendants a poisoned chalice, and if we ever sip from it we must
be subject to the same punishments, otherwise this whole trial is a
farce.” Interestingly, in Jackson’s opening statement he claimed that
the prosecution did not wish to incriminate the whole German race for
the crimes they committed, but only the “planners and designers” of
those crimes, “the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture
the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and
lawlessness … of this terrible war.”
So, at Nuremberg, the ordinary Germans who threw Jews into crematoria
were not tried, but only their leaders, who incited violence. It was
not surprising, therefore, to find Julius Streicher included in that
short list. He was found guilty of crimes against humanity at the
Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and sentenced to death on October 1, 1946.
Another person who didn’t escape punishment at Nuremberg was Dr. Wolfram
Sievers of the Ahnenerbe Society’s Institute of Military Scientific
Research, whose own crimes were traced back to the University of
Strasbourg. They were not the typical people prosecuted for
international war crimes, given their civilian professions. As Professor
Noam Chomsky has argued there is a justification for their punishment,
namely, those defendants could understand what they were doing. They
could understand the consequences of the work that they were carrying
out.
What is important here to stress is that Julius Streicher was not a
member of the military. He was not part of planning the Holocaust, the
invasion of Poland, or the Soviet invasion. Yet his role in inciting the
extermination of Jews was significant enough, in the prosecutors’
judgment, to include him in the indictment.
As we have noted from the latest extermination campaign against the
Rohingyas of Myanmar, there was collusion from certain elements of the
civil sector (Rakhine politicians and intellectuals) in this crime
spree. They provided the justification for extermination. They acted
like Julius Streicher of the Nazi era.
I would like to believe that by identifying and prosecuting both the
state and non-state actors that are responsible for the on-going
extermination campaigns we can show that such crimes against humanity
will not be tolerated in our time.
It is high time that the UN and the international media take notice
of this grave historic injustice to the Rohingyas of Myanmar. The Thein
Sein regime must be obliged to accept the Rohingyas as equal citizens
failing which the entire region would be forced to settle for decades of
instability and insecurity, something nobody wants. It is for the good
of the entire region – south and south-east Asia, let alone Myanmar that
the regime fulfills its international obligations by reaffirming
fundamental human rights and securing the life and dignity of the
minorities within its territory, as are very clearly enshrined in the
preamble of the Charter of the UN. The sooner the better!
However, as I have noted elsewhere the Myanmar government is known to
have perfected the game of playing cat-and-mouse with the world
community, hoping that such occasional extermination campaigns (dubbed
as ‘sectarian’ clashes or riots) would soon be forgotten. After all, it
has never been punished harshly for its horrendous records on a plethora
of violations. In 2006, Special Rapporteur Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro
stated: “As noted by the Special Rapporteur in his previous reports, the
above-mentioned serious human rights violations have been widespread
and systematic, suggesting that they are not simply isolated acts of
individual misconduct by middle- or low-ranking officers, but rather the
result of a system under which individuals and groups have been allowed
to break the law and violate human rights without being called to
account.” It is not by chance that when Tomas Ojea Quintana, the UN
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, urged an
independent inquiry on Arakan Thein Sein promptly announced its own
internal inquiry commission only to diffuse such outside pressures.
It is, therefore, necessary for the world community to ensure that it
is not fooled by such ploys again, and instead, to demand full
compliance – including restoring Rohingya citizenship rights – within a
prescribed period of, say, six months. If the regime fails to reform by
improving the status of the minority Rohingyas, the ASEAN and the OIC,
with or without the UNSC, must press for the International Criminal
Court (ICC) to investigate the massacre, and indict the Myanmar
government for its war crimes against the Rohingya and other minorities,
violating international criminal laws based on the provisions
stipulated under the Rome Statute of the ICC.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was
adopted in July 1998 and came into force in July 2002, is a useful
articulation of many of modern principles of international criminal law.
As noted in a 114-page report “Crimes in Burma” (2009) by International
Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) at Harvard Law School, the five common
elements of a crime against humanity are as follows: (1) there must be
an “attack”; (2) the attack must be “directed against” a “civilian
population”; (3) the attack must be “widespread or systematic”; (4) the
conduct of the perpetrator must be “part of ” such an attack; and (5)
the perpetrator must have “knowledge” that, or intended that, his or her
conduct is part of such an attack. The Report says, “Of the Rome
Statute provisions on war crimes the most relevant to Burma are Articles
8(2)(c) and 8(2)(e), which cover serious violations in conflicts of a
“non-international” (or internal) character… To constitute a war crime
in the context of an internal armed conflict, the act must be committed
against persons taking ‘no active part in the hostilities’. A war crime
involves a perpetrator committing one of a number of prohibited acts,
such as rape or torture, in a situation that meets certain common
elements.”
If anyone is looking for evidences there are plenty to indict the
Myanmar regime for its crimes against humanity. Unless the Myanmar
government corrects or is pushed to correcting its Rohingya problem soon
by allowing them to live as equal citizens, I am afraid that the agenda
could be hijacked by extremists on both sides of the Muslim-Buddhist
divide which could lead to war of secession, further threatening the
regional peace and security.
It is worth noting here that the UN Security Council has the power
under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to take measures “to maintain or
restore international peace and security” when it determines “the
existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of
aggression.” Article 41 of the Charter allows the Security Council to
take action that does not involve the use of force. As articulated in
Article 33 of the Charter, whenever the Council “deems necessary,” at
“any stage” of a dispute, it may intervene “to ensure prompt and
effective action” to safeguard peace and security. Myanmar is a prima
facie case for the UNSC to intervene to ensure that the Rohingyas are
protected from any further violations of their human rights.
In its 2009 report the IHRC stated, “UN actors documenting of
reported violations have been strongly suggesting these violations may
constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes under international
criminal law. This creates a strong prima facie case that such crimes
have been occurring, and justifies intensified UN Security Council
action to investigate the scope and scale of these potential crimes… If
the international community and the UN Security Council fail to take
action the evidence presented in this report suggests that the grave
humanitarian situation in eastern Burma and elsewhere in the country
will continue unchecked. The perpetrators of serious human rights and
humanitarian violations will remain unaccountable. A culture of impunity
will persist that is highly conducive to the continuance and escalation
of violations.” And as the latest pogrom testifies, these fears have
become reality for the Rohingya people.
The report recommended, “To help prevent future violations, the UN
Security Council should create a Commission of Inquiry mandated and
sufficiently resourced to investigate adequately the situation and make
appropriate recommendations based on its findings. This Commission
should apply all relevant international criminal and humanitarian law
standards, in order to analyze whether or not the ongoing widespread and
systematic violations may amount to crimes against humanity or war
crimes. The international community, particularly the member countries
of the United Nations, should make it clear to the Security Council that
such action is needed. Finally, the Security Council should be prepared
to act upon findings and recommendations made by such a Commission,
including a potential referral to the International Criminal Court, the
permanent body established to investigate, try, and sentence those who
commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
Three years have passed by since the IHRC Report surfaced. And yet
today, the lives of persecuted Rohingya are infinitely worse. Simply
put, they face extinction. How long can the UNSC afford to do nothing
when it comes to protecting their lives? How about starting with an
international inquiry commission, as recommended by Tomas Quintana?
It would be the greatest tragedy of our generation should we allow
the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing to whitewash their crimes against
humanity. The UNSC must demand an impartial inquiry and redress the
Rohingya crisis. The Rohingya people need protection as the most
persecuted people on earth. Should the Thein Sein government fail to
bring about the desired change, starting with either repealing or
amending the 1982 Citizenship Law, the UNSC must consider creating a
‘save haven’ inside Arakan in the northern Mayu Frontier Territories to
protect the lives of the Rohingya people so that they could live safely,
securely with honor and dignity as rest of us.
Unless, the Myanmar government restores the fundamental rights of the
Rohingya people, let no government reward it with lucrative business
deals, nor lift the current sanctions. Otherwise, they must share the
guilt of aiding mass murder, making a mockery of everything that we
cherish dear and noble, letting the bleeding and suffering to continue.
If they truly want to see change, they better walk the talk! The US and
her western partners must establish concrete, identifiable benchmarks,
as I hinted here, to make sure the so-called reform is irreversible and
inclusive for persecuted minorities like the Rohingya. They should
insist that “ethnic cleansing” of any minority is unacceptable and is a
crime against humanity, and ensure that Myanmar’s reforms include its
minorities, embrace international human rights standards, and end its
ethnocentric agenda.
If the Thein Sein regime is truly reform-minded, let it prove itself
by doing what is just, morally right and honorable. It has the choice to
either pick up the carrot or be beaten by the stick. It can capture
this moment to either make history or be dumped in its garbage, sealing
the fate of the country much like what happened to Yugoslavia and its
leader Milosevic. I pray and hope that it chooses inclusion over
exclusion, diversity over racism, tolerance over intolerance, wisdom
over idiocy and ultimately life over death.
Source: Here
