The slow-motion agony of the Rohingya people continues, perhaps somewhat abated by international attention, including the recent visit by Pope Francis. It would be useful to examine the roots of the crisis. In legalese terms, "Cui bono?" Who benefits now, or has benefitted in the past, from the disenfranchisement and victimization of the Rohingya? Turns out there is quite a list, from an article in The Nation by Kraisak Choonhavan. The first in the lineup would be the colonial British government of the 19th century, which rather cynically played various ethnic groups against one another to maintain control. When India and Myanmar gained their independence, the UK left behind the problems. In some ways, the present trouble is a sequela of colonialism, even though it is over 70 years in the past. More recently countries in Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand and Malaysia, have engaged in human trafficking of the Rohingya, who have the "...dubious distinction of being one of the most heavily trafficked people in the world."
And of course, always follow the money: from an article about the oil economics and land grab politics behind Myanmar's refugee crisis. The prime beneficiary of the land grabs from the disenfranchised people is Myanmar itself, and countries which have "..long eyed its resources, such as China and India....
"Among numerous development projects, a transnational pipeline
built by China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) connecting Sittwe, the
capital of Rakhine, to Kunming, China, began operations in September
2013. The wider efforts to take Myanmar oil and gas from the Shwe gas
field to Guangzhou, China, are well documented.
A parallel pipeline is also expected to send Middle East oil from the Kyaukphyu port to China. However, the neutral Advisory Commission on Rakhine State has urged the Myanmar government to carry out a comprehensive impact assessment. In fact, the commission recognises that pipelines put local communities at risk. "
"...Meanwhile, the Sittwe deep-sea port was financed and constructed
by India as part of the Kaladan Multi-modal Transit Transport Project.
The aim is to connect the northeast Mizoram state in India with the Bay
of Bengal.
Coastal areas of Rakhine State are clearly of strategic importance to
both India and China. The government of Myanmar, therefore, has vested
interests in clearing land to prepare for further development and to
boost its already rapid economic growth."
There are no solutions in sight right now, except for two bad ones. One is the intention stated by Bangladesh, the host country to many of the refugees, of turning an uninhabitable island
prone to flooding into a camp for the refugees. Says Amnesty International's South Asia Director: "In its desperation to see the Rohingya leave the camps and ultimately
return to Myanmar, it is putting their safety and well-being at risk.” The island is far from other refugee settlements, and would be hard for aid agencies to reach. The other bad solution is to try to force the refugees' repatriation to Myanmar prematurely. Their villages and property are destroyed, and the factors that drove them into exile still exist. They would again be subject to persecution and violence.
The best temporary solution needs to come from the same thing that caused the Rohingyas disenfranchisement in the first place: money. Money to help Bangladesh and other countries who have provided refuge bear the extra burden, money to directly aid the refugees with their immediate need. Various aid agencies, such as Doctors Without Borders, and the Red Cross, have been present, doing the best they can. But more needs to be done to address their desperate conditions. The UK, to its credit, has committed to a generous aid package. The other countries, such as China, India, Thailand, and Malaysia, who have profited from the exploitation of the Rohingya and the resources of the lands they were driven from, should be the ones to help provide for them in their places of exile. Unfortunately in the present mood of "America First", I don't have any confidence that our government will provide much in the way of material aid or leadership in this crisis.
It is so helpful that the oil barons are involved. (I didn't know that before.) The Rohingya and the Bangladeshis have only to ask the tribes along the Niger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_in_the_Niger_Delta) how that worked out for them. Of course we all know that pipelines never leak, nor do they explode. That explains the 210,000-gallon spill from Keystone, which is state-of-the-art and not even finished. That's why we always give the locals a say (not), just as the British consulted the locals before drawing maps.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are correct. The United States is too preoccupied with Childe Donald Meets Washington to notice anything else these days. Maybe after he sends the Dreamers back to where they came from and halts Canadian aluminum at the border, our president can find common cause with the Burmese generals. They are, after all, his kind of guys.
The Rohingyas will just have to suck it up like everybody else who made the bad decision to stand athwart the path of greed.
There aren't many things I can think of that are worse than human trafficking, but genocide would be on that short list. And it seems that also is happening to the Rohingya.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-rights/acts-of-genocide-suspected-against-rohingya-in-myanmar-u-n-idUSKCN1GJ163
Btw - frequently I am a critic of the UN because it seems so ineffective so often. So let me acknowledge that the UN is doing some important work regarding the Rohingya, in terms of raising awareness of human rights abuses, and also in getting aid to refugees. And because there are some international aspects to the plight of the Rohingya, the UN is trying to broker some international cooperation, although it seems that squabbling on the Security Council is preventing much progress here, as in so many other areas.
But the UN also is hamstrung to some extent by its charter, which does not authorize the UN to intervene in what are perceived to be intra-state issues (such as the Myanmar government exterminating the Rohingya). The UN envisions a "state-ish" world that still largely holds true but may admit of important exceptions - there are large areas of the world where tribal or religious identity seems equally or even more important than national identity. Surely the Rohingya are an example. Another obvious one are the Kurds. The Rwanda genocide, largely an intra-state event, was tribal.
I struggle with the question of what, and how much, the US should do about problems like the Rohingya. Once I get past parameters like "We can't do everything" and "we shouldn't do nothing", I'm not sure what we should do.
Jim, I agree with you that it is genocide, and is absolutely horrifying. I think shining a spotlight on it is one of the most important things we can do. Unfortunately Myanmar isn't granting UN observers visas to come in at present. Seems like there is a lot they don't want a spotlight shined on. However the burnt villages are literally visible from space via satellite. And there are the refugees themselves; whose stories bear witness to the brutality inflicted on them. You are right that the rules the UN operates under limits the interventions they can undertake. I don't see the USA getting militarily involved there, and maybe that's a good thing. Our track record with military interventions hasn't been very stellar of late. I think our press and media need to keep spotlighting the mayhem, and the need. Material aid for those surviving in subhuman conditions in refugee camps is something we can pressure our lawmakers to support. Not to mention direct contributions to charities which render aid.
DeleteBangladesh's "island" solution of pushing marginalized and unwanted people onto a piece of land that they consider worthless has a ring of familiarity. Oh yeah, that was what we did to the Native Americans, aka Indians.
ReplyDelete