Aung San Suu Kyi.. The Fall of a Human Rights Icon..

[Quantum Quack]

Do you recall the troubles between the indigenous Fijian population and the Indian population of Fiji (year 2000)?

Mahendra Chaudhry had become the country's first Prime Minister of Indian descent.
The election result and Chaudhry's subsequent appointment as Prime Minister angered hardline i-Taukei nationalists. His government's hints at land reform caused further alarm. When a group led by George Speight, a businessman who had been declared bankrupt following the cancellation of several contracts by the Chaudhry government, entered Parliament buildings on 19 May 2000, disaffected elements of the i-Taukei population rallied to his side. For 56 days, Prime Minister Chaudhry and most of his cabinet, along with many Parliamentarians and their staff, were held as hostages while Speight attempted to negotiate with the President, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, who denounced the coup and declared a state of emergency, and with the military administration which took office on 29 May.
​

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Fijian_coup_d'état
It seems that Burmese-Myanmar people/government are attempting to protect their "genotype"... (which may be considered as underpinning all racism...)

It could also be said the same for the indigenous of Australia, mourning the loss of racial identity, culture and esteem.

Genetic wars seem to be seriously evident in many places globally these days. ( more obviously so than has been the case in recent history)

"It's not nationalism, it's genotype - ism" (pure racism )

Perhaps a symptomatic fear based outcome of globalization that is happening way too quickly.

 

[Bells]

Bearing Witness

Do you recall the troubles between the indigenous Fijian population and the Indian population of Fiji (year 2000)?

Of course. Who can forget that?

But you missed one important aspect of the divide in Fiji. Fijian Indians are citizens and are allowed to participate in Government and allowed to vote, own businesses, and enjoy their human rights. To wit, Speight never denied that they were human beings. He may not have liked them and hated the fact that Fiji has a large Indian population who are wealthy, etc, but he never denied them their fundamental human rights.

It seems that Burmese-Myanmar people/government are attempting to protect their "genotype"... (which may be considered as underpinning all racism...)

I don't really think that is really the case in a lot of ways. The situation in Burma is much more complex than that.

It could also be said the same for the indigenous of Australia, mourning the loss of racial identity, culture and esteem.

Not the same. Australian Aboriginals feel the loss of their homeland, an invasion which saw them lose their fundamental human rights for generations and not they rightly seek reparation and inclusion. And they are granted their human rights, they are citizens, they vote, they participate in the political arena and are given the right to fight for their rights. No one has said that they are not Australian. Far from it.

Genetic wars seem to be seriously evident in many places globally these days. ( more obviously so than has been the case in recent history)

What we are seeing in Burma is a slow genocide, QQ. If the Rohingya will not leave, they will either be driven out or slaughtered. I provided a link earlier, the signs that are present in a genocide. You should read it. What we are seeing in Myanmar/Burma is a slow moving genocide. Not a fast one like we saw in Rwanda. Myanmar has been a slow one, but the signs are all there.

1) Classification: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most likely to have genocide. ​

In Myanmar, the classifications were set long ago. Ethnic Burmese Buddhist (who practice a different brand of Buddhism that the world would normally associate with Buddhism) and the Rohingya are referred to as Bengali's.. Outsiders...

2) Symbolisation: We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people “Jews” or “Gypsies”, or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia.​

In Myanmar, they are Muslims, less than human. There are various videos on youtube, interviews with the military who describe how it is impossible that their soldiers or burmese Buddhists would commit mass rape, because Rohingya women are not even really human, they are described as being dirty brown animals and Muslims. Their colour is their symbol. Their religion is their symbol.

3) Discrimination: A dominant group uses law, custom, and political power to deny the rights of other groups. The powerless group may not be accorded full civil rights or even citizenship. Examples include the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 in Nazi Germany, which stripped Jews of their German citizenship, and prohibited their employment by the government and by universities. Denial of citizenship to the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma is another example.​

Really, this goes without saying. The Rohingya were stripped of their citizenship with laws passed in 1982. They are denied the right to a secondary education, healthcare, many are kept in internment camps where they are denied food and healthcare, they are denied the right to work as teachers, nurses, doctors, they are not allowed to even go to school to become any of those things. They are denied the right to travel and move freely. They are denied the right to marry and have children without permission from the Government. They face abject and systematic discrimination. I posted a youtube video earlier of Aung San Suu Kyi, in various forums being asked about the Rohingya. She prattled on about the "rule of law" and then advised that of course, the "rule of law" that protects people's rights only apply to citizens of Burma.

4) Dehumanisation: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies.​

Again, this one is bleeding obvious in Myanmar. Hell, Aung San Suu Kyi has been using her official Facebook page to spout the hateful propaganda. They are referred to as names that are less than human, QQ. They are referred to as "savages, snakes, mad dogs".. "Government officials have referred to them as "viruses", "foreign entities".. Politicians in Myanmar even quote Hitler in propaganda of how to 'eliminate' the Rohingya.

5) Organisation: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility (the Janjaweed in Darfur.) Sometimes organization is informal (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or decentralized (terrorist groups.) Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Plans are made for genocidal killings.​

In Myanmar, the Government and military have armed and trained Buddhist, many of them monks, and bused them into the State, where these attacks are happening. They are planning. And they are slowly carrying it out. In 2015, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum sent a delegation to the region to investigate. Their report advised that the groundwork was already in place for a genocide. That all the signs were there. We are bearing witness..

[End Part I]

 

[Bells]

Bearing Witness Part II

6) Polarisation: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center​

Rohingya face population control, they are not allowed to intermarry or interact. They are segregated, their movement restricted. Even visiting another village requires a permit. People who try to speak up disappear. Others are kept in internment camps, starved to death, denied the right to leave. Marriage is restricted, childbirth is restricted and the Government has imposed a 2 child policy on them.

7) Preparation: National or perpetrator group leaders plan the “Final Solution” to the Jewish, Armenian, Tutsi or other targeted group “question.” They often use euphemisms to cloak their intentions, such as referring to their goals as “ethnic cleansing,” “purification,” or “counter-terrorism.” They build armies, buy weapons and train their troops and militias. They indoctrinate the populace with fear of the victim group. Leaders often claim that “if we don’t kill them, they will kill us.” ​

Buddhist monks and members of the Government have been spreading propaganda about the Rohingya, that they are out to kill them all. The military have already admitted to 'cleansing' the province. People are taught to be afraid of them. Militia groups are armed and trained by the military and brought in. The Government, including Aung San Suu Kyi has been spreading propaganda against the Rohingya and aid groups who had been trying to feed them, referring to them as terrorists and that their operation in the region is viewed as their war against terrorism.

8) Persecution: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. In state sponsored genocide, members of victim groups may be forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is often expropriated. Sometimes they are even segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. Genocidal massacres begin. They are acts of genocide because they intentionally destroy part of a group. ​

Again, pretty obvious. There are internment/concentration camps and they are being confined to the region and starved, aid agencies, reporters and UN and human rights observers have been denied the right to enter the region. The massacres have begun. Men, women and children, especially the women and children, are being massacred. Those who flee are either struck down by the armed people shooting at them, or they starve along the way, drown in boats trying to escape, struck by landmines that have been placed along the border to kill them on the way out, and ensures they do not return. Men and boys are being locked in houses and the house set alight. Children are being hacked to death in front of their parents. One in two women and girls who make it into Bangladesh report of being raped.

9) Extermination: begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.” It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi).​

This is already happening. Villages are razed to the ground, they are being killed. Those who manage to escape have described how it is not just the military, but Buddhist militia doing the killing. The few Rohingya fighters who are there retaliate, and the cycle of violence is now spiraling. This is where we are at now.

10) Denial: is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them. ​

This process is already underway. Those who made it to Bangladesh have reported of how they have been seeing the murderers burn the bodies by the river in a bid to hide the massacres. The Government, including Aung San Suu Kyi has been actively denying the violence in the region and denying it is ethnic cleansing. They have denied access to the UN, human rights groups, international observers, journalists and Aung San Suu Kyi has been posting on Facebook how aid groups and human rights groups have been helping the "terrorists". They blame the violence on the victims and deny any wrongdoing. The world has finally started to notice and she is now doubling down with the denials, she has cancelled her trip to the UN. She will apparently address the issue in a statement on Tuesday. I don't expect that we will hear any differently to what she has always said about the Rohingya... That the "rule of law" only applies to citizens in Myanmar. How convenient that the Rohingya were stripped of their citizenship. Her previous statements have referred to them as "Bengali's".. thereby stripping them of their identity as Burmese Muslims and Rohingya.. As terrorists, which is another form of denial, excusing and condoning the ethnic cleansing.

We are literally, and I mean literally, bearing witness to a slow genocide in Myanmar. The ethnic cleansing is a part of that process.

You want to compare it to another situation to try to get a grasp of it? Rwanda, Srebrenica are good examples for a comparison. This is what is known as a slow genocide. It slips under the radar and isn't really noticed by the world's media. It isn't in your face and sudden as we saw in Rwanda, for example.

In light of what we actually know, from observers, human rights groups, aid groups, the UN who are all pointing to a slow genocide, do you think Aung San Suu Kyi should still be allowed to keep her Nobel Peace Prize?

 

[Quantum Quack]

In light of what we actually know, from observers, human rights groups, aid groups, the UN who are all pointing to a slow genocide, do you think Aung San Suu Kyi should still be allowed to keep her Nobel Peace Prize?

Obviously not...
As it destroys the value of Nobel system. All winners of the prize are diminished by her retaining it.

However some will debate the issue in ways that could be rather convincing.

for example:
The depths from which she has had to work from and the achievements she has made even though far from perfect, are deserving of recognition when considered in perspective and proper context. What is one genocide or ethnic cleansing of a minority when a nations entire population is at stake?
I personally don't see this as valid but many would given that social evolution by violent revolution can be a rather painful and long winded affair.

The sort of question could be:
What is one violent death when compared to millions of violent deaths? Is there intrinsically any difference?

The same sort of vexation as having millions starving to death in Yemen whilst I sit here throwing unwanted food in the bin here in Australia.

One could argue that any racially motivated homicide is an act of genocide or forced relocation is an act of ethnic cleansing.
Now consider the campaign in the USA "Black Lives matter" and then ask who is able to pass judgement with out pleading guilty first.

Regardless though, the Nobel awarded, as imperfect as it is, should be reconsidered in light of what is happening in Myanmar currently.

Not that it is going to help those in the refugee camps in the short to medium term future.
I guess the world has about 7-14 days to get it's act together before it too can be complicit in ethnic cleansing by default of inaction.

 

[Bells]

The depths from which she has had to work from and the achievements she has made even though far from perfect, are deserving of recognition when considered in perspective and proper context. What is one genocide or ethnic cleansing of a minority when a nations entire population is at stake?
I personally don't see this as valid but many would given that social evolution by violent revolution can be a rather painful and long winded affair.

How is their entire population at stake?

And you actually ask what is one genocide or ethnic cleansing? When the reality of your question is that when the cost would be her political ambition and power?

There is no justification or excuse for genocide, QQ.

What she did in the past may have deserved recognition, but what she is doing now and did even back then in her steadfast silence about their plight, has destroyed any respect for the peaceful and political protest she went through. What we now know is that she is only interested in her political power and position.

She was interviewed by the BBC a while back, and the interviewer pressed her on the plight of the Rohingya, even back then and questioned her inaction and the fact that she was trying to deny them their identity as Burmese. She refused to even address them as Rohingya, and instead referred to them as foreigners or Muslims. A hot mic moment then caught her words about the BBC interviewer:

The BBC tried to press her to actually use the term Rohingya, and she refused to use it. And then when she was interviewed by Mishal Husain, who’s a very prominent BBC interviewer, she was caught on a hot mic saying, “No one told me that I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim.”​

The sort of question could be:
What is one violent death when compared to millions of violent deaths? Is there intrinsically any difference?

Really? This is your fall back?

Aung San Suu Kyi has proven herself to be a politician and very little else. Any person who is willing to turn away and condone and even participate in a genocide and ethnic cleansing by spreading propaganda to help the 'genocidaire's', loses any standing in society. She is complicit in what is now happening. And I am saying that literally. Her complicity runs from her silence, denials of what is happening, blaming the Rohingya for the violence being committed against them, she even went so far as to deny who they actually are in her repeated requests that they not be referred to as Rohingya, to even spreading false propaganda against them and aid agencies who were desperately trying to feed them. And your response is "what is one violent death compared to millions of violent deaths?"..?

The same sort of vexation as having millions starving to death in Yemen whilst I sit here throwing unwanted food in the bin here in Australia.

Do you think that it is somehow comparable to her complicity to ethnic cleansing and genocide in the country she now leads?

You know, if you were the leader of Yemen and you were throwing food away, as millions of your fellow Yemenis died of starvation around you, then you might have a point.

One could argue that any racially motivated homicide is an act of genocide or forced relocation is an act of ethnic cleansing.
Now consider the campaign in the USA "Black Lives matter" and then ask who is able to pass judgement with out pleading guilty first.

Huh?

No, really, huh?

Did you, ermm, read any links that I provided to you? Do you understand what is meant by genocide? Do you understand the extent of what is happening to the Rohingya?

Are you suggesting that the world should repeat its inaction in the face of genocide and do nothing because hey, 'we've done some bad shit too, so we shouldn't really be judging'?

Regardless though, the Nobel awarded, as imperfect as it is, should be reconsidered in light of what is happening in Myanmar currently.

Not that it is going to help those in the refugee camps in the short to medium term future.
I guess the world has about 7-14 days to get it's act together before it too can be complicit in ethnic cleansing by default of inaction.

7 to 14 days?

This has been going on for years.

Let me ask you something, QQ.. Do you know why people use the term 'bearing witness' when it comes to genocide?

 

[Quantum Quack]

When you are actually ready and prepared to go beyond what the world has always done ( talk and not walk) let me know...
We currently have 100's of thousands of Muslim Rohingya stranded in no mans land, stateless and with out any escape to any where... 7- 14 days tops IMO....

Offer a solution beyond venting your disappointment at your own naivety that allowed you to be conned into supporting a serious racist like Aung-San-Suu-Kyi into a Nobel peace prize.
or bear witness to a successful genocide...
Do you have a solution?

 

[Bells]

When you are actually ready and prepared to go beyond what the world has always done ( talk and not walk) let me know...
We currently have 100's of thousands of Muslim Rohingya stranded in no mans land, stateless and with out any escape to any where... 7- 14 days tops IMO....

Offer a solution beyond venting your disappointment at your own naivety that allowed you to be conned into supporting a serious racist like Aung-San-Suu-Kyi into a Nobel peace prize.
or bear witness to a successful genocide...
Do you have a solution?

Well, thanks QQ. No, really, thanks.. And in case you weren't aware, understand that the 'thanks' is being uttered with disdain and sarcasm.

My solution?

More like solutions..

• UN peacekeepers in the Rakhine State.
• Closing the internment camps.
• Re-instating them as citizens.
• Shutting down State media that is being used to spread propaganda against them, thereby continuing and ensuring the genocide.
• Disarming the State armed militia who were brought in to attack, kill them and drive them from their homes.
• Criminal proceedings in the ICC for the gross human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing that has been happening for all those involved, including the newly elected Government that is currently driving this latest bout of ethnic cleansing.
• Allowing aid back into the region.

This is what needs to happen immediately. Failure to employ these measures will ensure the genocide continues.

Once that happens, the next process must begin.

• New elections, with the surety that ethnic groups are represented in Government with set seats reserved for ethnic minorities from each region.
• The laws that target ethnic minorities, primarily the Muslim minority which denies them the freedom of movement, the marriage laws and policies, the 2 child policy, laws that deny them the right to healthcare, education, employment need to be struck.
• Reparations to allow them to rebuild their homes and villages.
• Reconciliation meetings and open hearings for the population to aid in reconciliation for the region.
• Monitors and observers put in place to ensure they do not go backwards.

That is just to start with now.

 

[Quantum Quack]

....and how are you going to force a sovereign nation with all it's racist people to tow the line?
How are you going to solve the inherent racism problem?

Not that easy... yes?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The only solution that I see possible that does not require war, sanctions or further exasperation of the racism endemic to the region is:

The UN negotiate a 99 year lease on border land between Bangladesh and Myanmar that can facilitate the needs of 1 million or so displaced persons.
Create a negotiated safe zone immediately.
UN peace keepers to maintain safe zone security.
The safe zone would be similar to those employed in Uganda under the guidance of the UN - e.g. Bidi Bidi 250 sq kms 300,000

The reason for taking this approach is that globally the UN will be called upon more and more to facilitate sustenance for displaced persons, and a working model is much needed that can be accepted by most governments that may be called upon to allow their land to be made use of.
If Bangladesh would allow the UN to lease 300+sq kms to help facilitate a temporary safe zone and the UN staff it etc the threat of genocide will greatly diminish and the need to sanction the Myanmar with war etc would be unnecessary. Bangladesh could actually profit from such an arrangement.
As time passes and the heat drops a better more lasting solution may be found.

A point worth noting:
Racial discrimination may be illegal in some nations but racism it self is not Illegal in any nor can it ever be illegal.

 

[Bells]

....and how are you going to force a sovereign nation with all it's racist people to tow the line?
How are you going to solve the inherent racism problem?

Not that easy... yes?

Are you aware of what happened after the Rwandan genocide? The process of reconciliation and what they discovered about the people who took up arms to commit those genocidal acts? They were caught up in the moment. It is why shutting down State media is so important in stopping a genocide before it even happens. One of the first things that become apparent that a genocide is imminent is the use of State media, used to stir the populace into a frenzy of hatred and violence. That is what we are seeing in Myanmar, with the Government issuing statements and propaganda to stir up the racist violence.

The only solution that I see possible that does not require war, sanctions or further exasperation of the racism endemic to the region is:

The UN negotiate a 99 year lease on border land between Bangladesh and Myanmar that can facilitate the needs of 1 million or so displaced persons.
Create a negotiated safe zone immediately.
UN peace keepers to maintain safe zone security.
The safe zone would be similar to those employed in Uganda under the guidance of the UN - e.g. Bidi Bidi 250 sq kms 300,000

That would never work.

The reason is because of China. They signed a billion dollar deal with the Government of Myanmar for a pipeline and access to ports in that region. It is China and Russia who are currently holding the UNSC from taking any action at present, because of that deal. Your proposal would essentially be creating a new State, still be removing people from their homes and at the cost of Myanmar and possibly Bangladesh losing parts of their border. That isn't a viable option and will only ensure further conflict down the line. In effect, you would be creating another zone like the Kashmir or zones like the Palestinians are forced to endure, which as we know, is not really a solution. They want their freedom, not forced into what would otherwise be a fenced off zone and have no autonomy.

The Rohingya just want to be able to go home and live their lives as Burmese and enjoy equal rights, QQ. They want to be able to tend to their crops, go to work, school, have hospitals and access to healthcare and medication, be allowed to travel freely, marry freely. That is what they want. They want to become citizens again, because they are Burmese.

Your solution would entail their being driven from their homes and never allowed to return.

The reason for taking this approach is that globally the UN will be called upon more and more to facilitate sustenance for displaced persons, and a working model is much needed that can be accepted by most governments that may be called upon to allow their land to be made use of.

And how long can this be sustained for?

How long would these people be forced to remain in a zone and continue to be denied freedom, essentially being forced to remain in a refugee camp with no end in sight?

Do you think the Burmese will accept or allow the loss of portions of their country? How will that provide an end to the issue? It will just make it much much worse.

If Bangladesh would allow the UN to lease 300+sq kms to help facilitate a temporary safe zone and the UN staff it etc the threat of genocide will greatly diminish and the need to sanction the Myanmar with war etc would be unnecessary. Bangladesh could actually profit from such an arrangement.

Temporary safe zone.. And then what?

Bangladesh is already providing a temporary safe zone. The threat of genocide will not diminish if these people are still prevented from returning home, to their own country. In effect, your solution would continue their category as being stateless, not citizens of their own country, not able to determine their own fate or future. That is what they are already enduring.

It won't stop the genocide. It will merely facilitate its ethnic cleansing from the Rakhine State.

As time passes and the heat drops a better more lasting solution may be found.

The "heat will not drop" because the Burmese will object to losing a portion of their country, not to mention losing a billion dollar deal with the Chinese.. Your solution will only increase the resentment towards the Rohingya and your 'solution' is only going to ensure that they can never, ever return home.

How do you see that as a solution unless your intent is to remove the Muslim population from Burma entirely?

A point worth noting:
Racial discrimination may be illegal in some nations but racism it self is not Illegal in any nor can it ever be illegal.

I need to ask, what the hell are you on about?

You are literally advocating for the expulsion of the Rohingya to be placed in a set space for a 'temporary' amount of time with no end in sight, still stateless, still without rights and freedoms to come and go as their please, still homeless and no with no right of return to their own homes.

The solution is UN peacekeepers, reconciliation efforts which will do a hell of a lot more in regards to dealing with the racism and discrimination and fear of "the Muslims" than giving in to that fear and forcing them all out to live in what would be tantamount to a fenced off area with guards, restoring their citizenship, allowing them to return home.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I need to ask, what the hell are you on about?

What I am on about jt is the simple fact that you nor any one else can force another to do or believe anything.
Whilst you may suggest forcing the Myanmar Government to the negotiating table, you have to realize that they have no obligation to do anything.
This process of attempting to coerce a solution has never worked as proven historically for Myanmar.
The fact is the majority of Myanmar citizens, whether under duress or not, wish the Bengali, as they call them, to not reside in Myanmar.
To force an outcome where they go back will only force a repeat of the cycle and more deaths and dislocation will follow.

The Rohingya are not just refugees... they are asylum seekers...


Do you seriously think the Rohingya want to go back to a nation that is extremely hostile to them? Back to a nation that has allowed them to be butchered, raped and has burned their villages to the ground?
Would you want to go back?
Could the Government make any promises that you would believe? ( After they have just condoned the murder of your children and rape of your wife)
You can not force people to like each other nor can you force people to use common sense nor decency.

This, IMO, is the main problem with the world. Attempting to tell people what they can or can not do destroys good will. Good will is utterly essential if this world is to survive.

The USA is most likely going to find out the hard way that you can not force a nation to drop it's nuclear weapons program either.

Fact:
The Myanmar nation does not want the Rohingya to reside in Myanmar territory.

Bangladesh is already providing a temporary safe zone. The threat of genocide will not diminish if these people are still prevented from returning home, to their own country. In effect, your solution would continue their category as being stateless, not citizens of their own country, not able to determine their own fate or future. That is what they are already enduring.

Yes I heard on the news tonight that they are building a camp that for all accounts appears to be an internment camp.
This is not what I suggested.

What I suggested was that the UN leases land from the Bangladesh nation which then falls under UN jurisdiction.

A special pseudo UN state with in a state.... that would facilitate asylum even if on a short to medium term until a better more lasting solution is discovered.
Bangladesh would profit from this arrangement due to not only the rental being paid but also being needed to supply commercial services and commodities to that pseudo UN state.
This could be arranged very quickly if the right legal framework could be struck.

But it would be very important that the UN has jurisdiction over the land it leases and has unfetted access for humantitarian aid deliveries.

The Rohingya would become the worlds first UN citizens.
All stateless persons could become UN citizens thus no longer "stateless".

Sending the Rohingya back to where they are despised is simply not going to work.

 

[Bells]

What I am on about jt is the simple fact that you nor any one else can force another to do or believe anything.
Whilst you may suggest forcing the Myanmar Government to the negotiating table, you have to realize that they have no obligation to do anything.

The Myanmar Government is not only complicit, but they are also committing the acts of genocide. To wit, they would not be the ones coming to any negotiation table, QQ. You do understand that is what happens when the UN declares a genocide, yes? Those complicit or who are in charge of it, such as the sitting Government and leaders of the military and others who incite crimes against humanity, are tried for their crimes.

This process of attempting to coerce a solution has never worked as proven historically for Myanmar.
The fact is the majority of Myanmar citizens, whether under duress or not, wish the Bengali, as they call them, to not reside in Myanmar.
To force an outcome where they go back will only force a repeat of the cycle and more deaths and dislocation will follow.

QQ, if a genocide is declared, there is no coercion for a solution.

The people involved in it need to be brought to justice. You do understand that, yes?

And racism in Myanmar is nuanced because it is encouraged and demanded of the population by religious, political and military leaders.

Do you seriously think the Rohingya want to go back to a nation that is extremely hostile to them? Back to a nation that has allowed them to be butchered, raped and has burned their villages to the ground?

Yes. And why do I think that?

Because that is what the Rohingya have been saying. They want to be allowed to go home and be citizens again and be given rights.

Rohingya Muslims who have sought refuge in Bangladesh say they are desperate to stop living as refugees and return to their homeland in Myanmar.

“The Rohingyas have been seeking temporary shelter in Bangladesh only to save their lives from a genocide-like situation in Myanmar. For most of us, life as refugees is very hard in Bangladesh. Arakan (Rakhine), where our Rohingya community has lived for centuries, is our ancestral homeland. We want to go back to Arakan,” said Mohammad Shaker, a Rohingya leader in the Cox’s Bazar district of Bangladesh.

Nurul Islam, a Britain-based Rohingya rights activist and community leader, said whenever anti-Rohingya violence erupts in Myanmar, the international community has taken a keen interest to see that they get safe passage to other countries. But he alleges outside powers do not follow up to help the refugees return to their homeland.

“It appears many in the international community think if all Rohingyas are evacuated from Myanmar, the problem of our community will be solved. They are wrong,” said Islam, chairman of Arakan Rohingya National Organization. “The Rohingya crisis will never be resolved until our community members are able to return to their homeland in Arakan.”​

Would you want to go back?

It doesn't matter what I want, QQ.

Myanmar is their homeland. They have never said they do not want to go back. On the contrary, the fight has been for them to be allowed to return home.

Could the Government make any promises that you would believe? ( After they have just condoned the murder of your children and rape of your wife)
You can not force people to like each other nor can you force people to use common sense nor decency.

Again, if a genocide is declared, those in power are charged and more than likely imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

The Government will not be in any place to make any promises.

You keep addressing this from a point of view that completely invalidates what the Rohingya actually want and have never declared otherwise. Their goal is to return home. That is what they want. Declaring a genocide will allow them to return home. Setting up refugee camps on the border and leasing a few thousand acres to house them temporarily, under armed guard is not what they want. They want to go home and be safe in their homes and regain their citizenship and the rights accorded to them as citizens.

It's not about liking each other, QQ. It is about allowing them to regain their citizenship and being granted their fundamental human rights. Do you understand the difference?

This, IMO, is the main problem with the world. Attempting to tell people what they can or can not do destroys good will. Good will is utterly essential if this world is to survive.

This from the guy who is suggesting camps after enriching the Genocidal government further by leasing land from them and preventing the victims from returning home for heaven knows how long, and completely ignoring what the victims of the genocide actually want, which is to return home...

Fact:
The Myanmar nation does not want the Rohingya to reside in Myanmar territory.

And?

The Rohingya are Burmese. You do not get to expel a segment of the population because you just don't like them. If we were to take your argument seriously, then Trump could very well turn around and argue with his base that African Americans are not wanted in the US and to ship them 'back to Africa', after stripping them of their citizenship and fundamental human rights. Now imagine if the US had been populated by whites and blacks since the 8th century and the whites suddenly decided today that the black people could no longer be citizens, because they don't want them there because they are black, and then ships them out of the country.

The Burmese Buddhists can declare they do not want the Rohingya or any other ethnic minority in their country as much as they like. The Rohingya are still just as Burmese as they are and always will be and have just as much rights to their homeland as they do.

You do get that, yes?

Yes I heard on the news tonight that they are building a camp that for all accounts appears to be an internment camp.
This is not what I suggested.

What I suggested was that the UN leases land from the Bangladesh nation which then falls under UN jurisdiction.

A special pseudo UN state with in a state.... that would facilitate asylum even if on a short to medium term until a better more lasting solution is discovered.
Bangladesh would profit from this arrangement due to not only the rental being paid but also being needed to supply commercial services and commodities to that pseudo UN state.
This could be arranged very quickly if the right legal framework could be struck.

Yep. Great..

At what point are you going to listen to what the Rohingya want and stop dictating about what they should want or do?

And to the other, the UN cannot afford to do what you are suggesting..

Thirdly, if what you suggest comes to fruition, then the Rohingya will never be allowed to return home. Ever. And that is not what they want.

But it would be very important that the UN has jurisdiction over the land it leases and has unfetted access for humantitarian aid deliveries.

The Rohingya would become the worlds first UN citizens.
All stateless persons could become UN citizens thus no longer "stateless".

Sending the Rohingya back to where they are despised is simply not going to work.

Or you can declare a genocide, send in peacekeepers, arrest those who are suspected of being guilty in any process of the genocide, restore their citizenship since they are Burmese..

 

[spidergoat]

The only solution that I see possible that does not require war, sanctions or further exasperation of the racism endemic to the region is:

Concentration camp.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Or you can declare a genocide, send in peacekeepers, arrest those who are suspected of being guilty in any process of the genocide, restore their citizenship since they are Burmese..

and repeat the process over and over again until we realize we are doing it wrong...

 

[spidergoat]

What I am on about jt is the simple fact that you nor any one else can force another to do or believe anything.

Nonsense. They have interests served by other countries who may choose not to interact with them. Sanctions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nonsense. They have interests served by other countries who may choose not to interact with them. Sanctions.

so, how does that relate.?
They may have interests and may also be influenced by those interests but this is not the same as forcing (point of a gun) someone to believe or do anything.

 

[spidergoat]

Certainly we can't do much with Trump in the White House. We can try spreading propaganda. Seems to work with Russia.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Could be old news; haven't be following the thread. ..

But anyway: https://ca.yahoo.com/news/pm-trudeau-says-sent-letter-183328127.html

 

[Quantum Quack]

Could be old news; haven't be following the thread. ..

But anyway: https://ca.yahoo.com/news/pm-trudeau-says-sent-letter-183328127.html

It is distressing to witness such an apparent fall from grace yet her silence for either for or against the ethnic cleansing is in itself an important thing to consider.
Perhaps we in the West do not know why she refuses to say anything.
Perhaps we simply do not have all the facts.
We can only surmise based on the evidence presented and our speculations accordingly.
Perhaps history will tell a more complete story as to why she is allowing the world to consider her claim to the Nobel as a fraud.

As it stands though I see 300,000 + survivors of a potential genocide and perhaps that is the best she could wish for given the circumstances that we may have no insight into ( yet)

 

[Bells]

and repeat the process over and over again until we realize we are doing it wrong...

They want to be allowed to return home, regain their citizenship and fundamental human rights. We would do wrong by them if we literally forced them to leave their homes, live in some kind of internment camp for their so called protection, and they would still be without rights, still not citizens. You do get that, yes?

It is distressing to witness such an apparent fall from grace yet her silence for either for or against the ethnic cleansing is in itself an important thing to consider.

Well, perhaps you should not be so "naive".

Perhaps we in the West do not know why she refuses to say anything.
Perhaps we simply do not have all the facts.

Perhaps you can stop making excuses for her.

We can only surmise based on the evidence presented and our speculations accordingly.

She has made her thoughts on the matter clear up to this point. I have to ask, why do you refuse to believe her words and actions on the matter?

Perhaps history will tell a more complete story as to why she is allowing the world to consider her claim to the Nobel as a fraud.

Power corrupts.

As it stands though I see 300,000 + survivors of a potential genocide and perhaps that is the best she could wish for given the circumstances that we may have no insight into ( yet)

Yes, we do. Her department has been releasing statements constantly, she has said plenty when it comes to the Rohingya and their rights. She has denied them their identity, requested that other countries stop referring to them as "Rohingya" (which is basically telling other countries to stop referring to them as being Burmese), she has used her social media platform to spread propaganda against them and labeled them all as terrorists. She has repeatedly stated that the "rule of law" in Myanmar is how to deal with human rights abuses and then reminded everyone that the "rule of law" in Myanmar only applies to its citizens..

Stop making excuses for her.