A Post I Hoped I'd Never Have to Write
 |
| attribution pending |
"My attitude to peace is rather based on the Burmese definition of peace - it really means removing all the negative factors that destroy peace in this world. So peace does not mean just putting an end to violence or to war, but to all other factors that threaten peace, such as discrimination, such as inequality, poverty." - Aung San Suu Kyi
"Suffering degrades, embitters and enrages." - Aung San Suu Kyi
I recognize that it’s painful for supporters of Aung San Suu
Kyi to read and encounter criticism of her lack of response to the Rohingya
Crisis. I respect the various posts from Mizza and other sources attempting to
provide responses to these criticisms, but they are, I’m afraid, inadequate if not wrongheaded. They are very much missing the point of why this rhetoric toward San Suu Kyi has intensified.
The current crisis is the result of systemic and systematic
targeting of the Rohingya since 1982 (when they were denied citizenship by the military junta, if not earlier). Since her release Aung San Suu Kyi has
been reticent if not outright dismissive of the issues in the Rakhine. There are several
points here to consider.
Her apologists opined in the early days of her release and
after her ascension to Counselor that she wanted to avoid alienating people on
all sides (be it the military or other parties’ and perhaps other ethnic
groups). Fine, but at this point, for me, particularly as we knew what was unfolding, she lost all credibility as a
dissident, as someone who spoke truth to power and as a leader. Other friends
of mine continued to hold out hope and now, some remarkably strong supporters
are removing her picture from their walls.
Since October, we’ve seen horrible crimes unfold and
apologists are pointing to ARSA, to possible collusion from Pakistan and ISIS
(the sources for the one is that the Pakistanis raised the plight of the
Rohingya – in Pakistan – as part of a particularly virulent demonstration
against Islamaphobia and violence against Muslims; the ISIS connection has its
source from Malaysia [tellingly, though, some of the harshest criticism has come from Najib Razak himself - that's not necessarily an endorsement since he's got a few skeletons in his closet]). Consider the source, though: it's the Myanmar government that has framed this narrative. Note that the links in the article tracking back to the president's page are dead (at present; 9/8/2017)
But the main point here is that prior to October of last
year, utter racism against the Rohingya was already in full force. And not to
put too fine a point on it, but anti-Muslim sentiment does run deep in certain
areas of Myanmar. A fine example of institutional racism and persecution, of
course, is the Ma
Ba Tha, the group of militant “Buddhists” (and they are in quotation marks
because there’s nothing Buddhist about them – monks who take up hatred are no
longer monks; disrobe and pick up a gun, but don’t drag Buddha into it). As for their leader, Wirathu, is a thug at best; he's no monk in my eyes. Fortunately, there are those who are willing to take him and his gang in robes on.
But-but-but They started it! or Victim blaming anyone?
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
The Dhammapada, 1:5
The second point is that instead of pointing fingers
(although culpable parties should be found and tried), no one has asked about
the disproportionate slaughter of the Rohingya. Oh, sure, “other ethnic people
have also been killed”; that’s icing on the cake. The point to the Holocaust wasn’t
that “other ethnicities were targeted and slaughtered”; it’s that six million
Jews were wiped off the planet with all the attendant trauma that invites.
Genocide means that a group is targeted for eradication. Discussing the legal
status of this or that group serves only to show up the lack of political will
on the power holders and the indifference of a society that can’t be bother
(until it metastasizes into full blown racism or xenophobia or both). Human right to existence is not a matter that should be subjected to human legislation.
Additionally, sure, there are lots of uninformed opinions
floating around. I’m not a Burma expert, though I am intimate with Burmese
history since the end of British occupation. But you don’t have to be an expert
to see that rampant rape, torture and murder is wrong and should be condemned
immediately. That Aung San Suu Kyi is holding silence is not noble; it’s
cowardice.
Her “condemnation
of the violence in the Rakhine” is ludicrous and offensive. Not a mention
of the terror that the Rohingya have faced and that her thoughts are with the security
personnel and their families is de facto ignoring the plight of the people who
have suffered the most. Not a word of sympathy or solace.
There are counter
narratives to the government's reporting (and the Myanmar media) that should be taken
seriously (the Independent's article and sidebars are a good reprise from last year). Dismissed out of hand only paints the blood thicker. Priscilla Clapp has spoken about disinformation and sided with Suu Kyi and the government about
how they are handling journalistic and
aid access. Her argument that the government is looking out for journalist and
aid worker safety is ludicrous in the face of what journalists and aid workers have
had to face in the past and what they still deal with in the country, let alone
international press corps who might report on potentially unpleasant events.
Clapp rises to Suu Kyi’s defense for not speaking out on the
one hand (“she’d be eaten alive” by the different parties) and that Suu Kyi was
doing the best she could to implement Kofi Annan’s recommendations when the violence
broke out. Nonsense. The report was delivered a few days before the August 25
break-out of violence; how is Suu Kyi going to implement anything? But there’s
been no proof of Suu Kyi’s desire or effort to get anyone around a table,
anyway, from any previous time.
Clapp herself doesn't seem to give two pins about the Rohingya, either; they haven't assimilated and "rightly or wrongly" they "are viewed by the majoritiy of Burmese as foreigners or recent immigrants." She says that the Rohingya in diaspora speak mostly for the rights of Rohingya in Burma, but this is not true; the plight of the Rohingya in Burma speaks for itself. But as importantly, these horror stories and brutalities are being witnessed and reported by the victims themselves, to say nothing of the planting of land mines near the Bangladesh border. It is disingenuous for Clapp (or anyone) to claim that diasporic Rohingya are exlusively speaking for the Rohingya in Myanmar.
 |
| Smoke rises from a burned house in Gawdu Zara village, northern Rakhine state, Myanmar Thursday, Sept. 7, 2017. Journalists saw new fires burning Thursday in the Myanmar village that had been abandoned by Rohingya Muslims, and where pages from Islamic texts were seen ripped and left on the ground. (AP Photo) https://www.yahoo.com/news/obliterated-village-burned-rohingya-myanmar-police-053942156.html |
"It's complicated" is the excuse parents use to avoid explaining sex to children and governments use to avoid accepting responsibility.
In the meantime, the government will spin that the Rohingya
set fire to their own villages (and I suppose killed their own people?) and others
will say that ARSA is funded by Pakistan. Or ISIS.
At the end of the day, what we do have are hundreds of
thousands of people with no state (meaning that they are effectively one of the largest displaced populations) and the one that should be a safe haven is
systematically determined to kill them. All.
Apologies to the apologists; I can offer no apology for how I feel about this nor can I accept that there is any justification for the atrocities that are unspooling before us. The Lady needs to either
step up and offer some sympathy for the oppressed and stop this madness or she will
continue to wear the bloodstained robe of the oppressor. This is nothing I ever wanted to see and the tragedy of a once-great woman is only eclipsed by the greater number of the marginalized under her leadership and one would have assumed in earlier days, protection.
I still love Myanmar. Nothing's going to change that; but uncritical acceptance of official narratives and not holding to account a woman I (and many others) supported and revere is not part of the relationship.
What you can do
US involvement may well escalate still, though the Senate is souring on Myanmar leadership; Simon Billeness would be the person to touch base with in the US.
Organize a protest at an embassy near you, etc. (Well, this one's already over, but you get the idea.)
Comments
Post a Comment