Genocide is never "politically correct"
Over the past week, Aung San Suu Kyi has
defended the case for Myanmar against charges of genocide to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in
the Hague. The formal charges were brought by Gambia and this has pushed forward
the stark contrast of Aung San Suu Kyi as a former representative of the oppressed
as a mouthpiece for a nationalist regime.
On its surface, it’s easy and heart-breaking to support the narrative
but digging a bit below the surface, there are other counter-narratives. I’d
like to drill down into some of the facets of these narratives.
I had shared a post to an article
at Myanmarmix.com that garnered a response from a Burmese friend of mine. I
suggest reading that article before continuing on and also reading the article
to which my friend linked here. I’ll add links at the end of this post, as well.
My friend writes:
“[T]he above tagged article [Political Correctness and the Genocide Case
Against Myanmar] is one i love to read about the crisis to drown out the
political noise. Long story short:
in my take, i prefer: Humans. Ethnicity. Citizenship. Due to
this stark contrast of viewpoints, (news headlines that rather sell $$$ vs.
actually caring for the Arakan Muslim Indo-asian community) has only made more
suffer. Would you rather want them to only accept genocide or to have both
communities reconcile for the long term?”
I am uncertain that the issue of “only accepting genocide”
is not in conflict with “both communities” reconciling for the long term. Humanity
is not living in a period where denialists of genocides have spoken with increasingly
louder voices that have resulted in near-erasure of indigenous and/or
historically independent populations. The Armenian and Jewish Holocausts, the
near obliteration of Tibetan culture (and for all practical purposes the obliteration
of Tibet as an independent polity), and more recently, the Bosnian and Rwandan
genocides have their denialists. Closer to home, my own government can be held
to be party to – if not executioner of – similar practices in ethnic, cultural,
or political erasure.
That the Rohingya have been and are being oppressed is
obvious and supported. That the reasons why are contested by people like the author
of the Irrawaddy article, Mon Mon Myat. I believe Mr. Myat is being somewhat
disingenuous when he writes "it is puzzling why Gambia omits the fact that
this systematic denial of legal rights to the Rohingya was a policy of the
former dictators since 1982. It also reflects the unhappy fact that for
decades, the UN ignored the Rohingya, as well as other human rights issues in
Myanmar. Gambia’s accusation cites the recently elected government as the
offender with specific genocidal intent."
The UN’s ignoring of human rights in Myanmar may be as
irrelevant as why didn’t the UN denounce the atrocities committed in Guatemala,
Argentina, etc., as well? The fact is that the world has changed substantially
since 1982 (to use that as a date of departure) and the geopolitical concerns
of individual states can no longer be ignored as easily as perhaps they might
have once been.
More to the point is that for over two decades, much of the
world has been aware of and concerned with human rights abuses in Myanmar, from
the Unocal suit to get Chevron to divest from investment in Myanmar to the
advocacy and activism of groups like the U.S. Campaign for Burma and similar
entities in the U.K. and Europe.
To his point that Gambia is pointing to the “clearance
operations” carried out during October 2016 and August 2017 and omitting that
these were in reaction to “the provocations of the Muslim militant group Arakan
Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), and its mass killings, forced relocations and
sexual violence” is another form of disingenuity. ARSA was formed in 2012 as a
response to the systematic oppression of the Burmese government; but didn’t
launch its first attack till October 2016.
Since then, the government has accused ARSA of murdering
hundreds of people, accusations that ARSA has denied. They were also blamed on
the same day of the Kha Maung Seik massacre by the Myanmar army and it is this
latter that requires greater scrutiny and positions ARSA as a group no one
needs. Eyewitnesses described the incursion and the summary executions that resulted
in 99 dead.
That said, the so-called “clearance operations” remain out of
proportion to these actions. In the report “Forced migration of Rohingya: the
untold experience”, the military and the local Rakhine Buddhists killed 24,000 Rohingya
people, carried out gang rape and sexual assault against 18,000 Rohingya Muslim
women, beat 116,000 Rohingya and set afire 36,000. To be sure, this is violence
against both Muslim and non-Muslim Rohingya.
The loss of life in any circumstance like these is
unsupportable whether it’s 99 or in the tens of thousands. What is untenable is
using the action of one to validify the slaughter of so many more unconscionably.
Mon Mon Myat is right in pointing out that Kofi Annan helped
establish an advisory board to
find a peaceful resolution for the situation among Burmese people themselves,
but absent any real action moving the process along, this has proven fruitless
and frustrating to all parties involved and one has to ask, is Myanmar’s
military leadership (and make no mistake at who holds the reins of power here)
interested in pursuing a peaceful resolution?
Myat considers the ethnogenesis of the term Rohingya and blames
the international community for politicizing it. This is facile. For one thing,
it is untenable to say that the Rohingya are not a political entity. That
members of the international community are appalled at what has transpired is unsurprising
but it’s important to bear in mind that groups of humans with shared cultures
and values are not merely one thing. They are not mere ethnic, or economic, or
political, abstractions.
Additionally, when Myat states that “The media had
uncritically accepted the Rohingya narrative since the refugee exodus in late
August 2017”, one has to reply, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
I’ve been guilty of using the word “genocide” without
stating why I choose to do so. Myat is correct that “It should not be used to
describe every atrocity involving mass killings.” However, since one of the bases
for the defense of Myanmar is against the charge of “genocide”, it’s worth
taking a look to see what it is and does the current situation warrant the use
of the term.
Most online dictionaries define genocide as an “intentional
action to destroy a people in whole or in part”. I believe there is sufficient evidence
to support this in what has come forward in investigations and frankly, the
rhetoric of those who defend the state’s actions. That this hasn’t happened
before or earlier is not an argument against the fact that a kind of final
solution has been enacted to eliminate a group that is seen as problematic in
several ways for the leadership of Myanmar.
I might hedge a little in that I am not one hundred percent
certain that this is genocide by intent, one of the points that Aung San Suu
Kyi is defending against. This would undermine Gambia’s case in large part. But
genocidal acts? These seem to be irrefutable. The systemic murder, rape, pillaging
and detention centers are, in fact, textbook genocidal acts to paraphrase UN
Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
What I find, frankly, ridiculous is the claim that these
charges are brought about by “political correctness.” This is offensive in the
extreme and Myat refers to the politicization of Rohingya ethnicity as the
cause: “The politicization of the Rohingya ethnicity has led to more than
700,000 people fleeing to neighboring Bangladesh.” This is utter nonsense. He
continues: “Myanmar stands accused of genocidal intent, yet the Myanmar army is
not the only perpetrator of violence. The ARSA provokes violence and engages in
mass killing, and so it too needs to be accounted for in an honest appraisal of
any charge of genocide. The provocations of the ARSA and the clearance
operation of the Myanmar army are the heads and tails of the same coin.”
I say this again, emphatically not as justification for ARSA’s
acts, but it was a group formed to resist policies of systemic oppression and
exploitation and ongoing marginalization. Secondly, there’s something off about
relying on “provocations” as reasons for slaughtering tens of thousands of
people and causing those 700,000 people to flee. This has nothing to do with “politicizing
ethnicity.” This may actually be a better case for proving intent, come to
think of it.
After all this, I wasn’t surprised to find that Myat decided
to finish with a bit of victim-blaming: “The Muslim community in Rakhine State
faces a dilemma. They need to decide whether they should accept their
citizenship status as being “Bengali,” that is, of a foreign root, just like
Indian and Chinese in Myanmar, or whether they should stick with the
politicized identity “Rohingya.” If they continue with the politicized identity
“Rohingya,” about 2 million Muslim people will continue to suffer as a
stateless community inside Rakhine State and in the refugee camps in
Bangladesh.”
Has it occurred to him that absent a meaningful approach to
citizenship, the Rohingya are extremely disadvantaged?
"In 1982, a new citizenship law was passed, effectively
rendering the Rohingya stateless. Under the law, Rohingya were again not
recognised as one of the country's 135 ethnic groups. The law established three
levels of citizenship. In order to obtain the most basic level (naturalised
citizenship), proof that the person's family lived in Myanmar before 1948 was
needed, as well as fluency in one of the national languages. Many Rohingya lack
such paperwork because it was either unavailable or denied to them.
As a result of the law, their rights to study, work, travel,
marry, practice their religion and access health services have been and
continue to be restricted. The Rohingya cannot vote, and even if they navigate
the citizenship test, they must identify as "naturalised" as opposed
to Rohingya, and limits are placed on them entering certain professions such as
medicine or law or running for office."
There are a couple of other items to address.
Why has Aung San Suu Kyi fallen out of grace with the
international community while maintaining strong support domestically? Is this
really a surprise? When a person is recognized for having spoken up for
inalienable human rights and become a representative of speaking truth to
power, the assumption is that such a stance holds good for each and all under
all circumstances.
Once she was released, many of us who had advocated for her
release were nonplussed by what we interpreted to be an unquestioning
collaboration with the military junta. Many of us felt betrayed as more and
more it became clear she was not taking a particularly strong stance against the
very actions that she finds herself now defending her country and its leadership
against.
That she has strong supporters in Myanmar is, of course,
understandable. I will disagree with my friends who continue to support her and
it is my hope that somewhere out of all this, she can rise to the occasion with
some form of support for the very people at risk of erasure (either by
remaining stateless or worse).
And this leads me to other issues that are altogether
glossed over more often than not and this speaks to news cycles and frankly, ignorance.
I do not know Michael Roe, but he is apparently a friend of
a friend of mine who’s a major supporter of and activist for the Rohingya (and
was the founder of the U.S. Campaign for Burma), Simon Billenness.
I hope he doesn’t mind me quoting his response to one of
Simon’s posts:
“Without diminishing in any way the international focus on
genocide involving the Rohingya, it must always be mentioned that the same, or
similar genocide campaigns by the Tatmadaw have been, and are currently being
carried out against the Shan (Tai) people, as well as the Karen, and other
ethnic communities in Myanmar. This ICJ proceeding must illuminate the overall
campaign by Burma's military government to burn out and bomb out ethnic
families that are living in regions where the military hierarchy (and all of
its commercial entanglements) seeks to claim forests, minerals, and waterways
out of greed for vast amounts of Chinese and international money.
It would be great to see other ethnic states in Burma
interplead into this ICJ case, but perhaps the present international focus on
DASSK and the Burmese generals is enough.”
Myanmar is as fraught with internal issues and strife as any
nation and it is incumbent upon all of us to not ignore their plight(s). The
reason this issue of the Rohingya matters is because, internally, it may well
set the course of policies toward ethnic minorities in the country, but even in
other parts Asia – particularly India and China – where on the one hand there
is a monstrous Citizenship Amendment Bill that threatens the rights of indigenous
people across the sub-continent and on the other, where Xinjiang is quickly
becoming a massive detention center for over one million Uigyurs. I would also
note that the military leadership does have Chinese (and Russian) support. This
might serve, also, as a point of concern for those who don’t question the
received narratives of what is happening to the Rohingya.
Links and additional reading
(2013) Aung San Suu Kyi between Biographical Myth and Hard Realities, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43:3, 546-554, DOI: 10.1080/00472336.2013.771942
UNOCAL issue: Blood and Oil in
Burma
Persecution of the Rohingya Muslims: Is Genocide Occurring in
Myanmar's Rakhine State - A Legal Analysis (Yale) PDF
Comments
Post a Comment