By MOSHAHIDA SULTANA RITU
Published: July 12, 2012
Source: New York Times: LAST spring, a flowering of democracy in Myanmar mesmerized the world. But now, three months after the democracy activist Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won a parliamentary seat, and a month after she traveled to Oslo to belatedly receive the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize,
 an alarm bell is ringing in Myanmar. In the villages of Arakan State, 
near the Bangladeshi border, a pogrom against a population of Muslims 
called the Rohingyas began in June. It is the ugly side of Myanmar’s 
democratic transition — a rotting of the flower, even as it seems to 
bloom. 
Cruelty toward the Rohingyas is not new. They have faced torture, 
neglect and repression in the Buddhist-majority land since it achieved 
independence in 1948. Its constitution closes all options for Rohingyas 
to be citizens, on grounds that their ancestors didn’t live there when 
the land, once called Burma, came under British rule in the 19th century
 (a contention the Rohingyas dispute). Even now, as military rulers have
 begun to loosen their grip, there is no sign of change for the 
Rohingyas. Instead, the Burmese are trying to cast them out. 
The current violence can be traced to the rape and killing in late May 
of a Buddhist woman, for which the police reportedly detained three 
Muslims. That was followed by mob attacks on Rohingyas and other Muslims
 that killed dozens of people. According to Amnesty International and 
Human Rights Watch, state security forces have now conducted mass 
arrests of Muslims; they destroyed thousands of homes, with the impact 
falling most heavily on the Rohingyas. Displaced Rohingyas have tried to
 flee across the Naf River to neighboring Bangladesh; some have died in 
the effort. 
The Burmese media have cited early rioting by Rohingyas and have cast 
them as terrorists and traitors. In mid-June, in the name of stopping 
such violence, the government declared a state of emergency. But it has 
used its border security force to burn houses, kill men and evict 
Rohingyas from their villages. And on Thursday, President Thein Sein 
suggested that Myanmar could end the crisis by expelling all of its 
Rohingyas or by having the United Nations resettle them — a proposal that a United Nations official quickly rejected.        
This is not sectarian violence; it is state-supported ethnic cleansing, 
and the nations of the world aren’t pressing Myanmar’s leaders to stop 
it. Even Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi has not spoken out.        
In mid-June, after some Rohingyas fled by boat to villages in 
Bangladesh, they told horrifying stories to a team of journalists whom I
 accompanied to this city near the border. They said they had come under
 fire from a helicopter and that three of six boats were lost. Some 
children drowned during the four-day trip; others died of hunger. Once 
in Bangladesh, they said, the families faced deportation back to 
Myanmar. But some children who had become separated from their parents 
made their way to the houses of villagers for shelter; other children 
may even now be starving in hide-outs or have become prey for criminal 
networks. Border guards found an abandoned newborn on a boat; after 
receiving medical treatment, the infant was left in the temporary care 
of a local fisherman. 
Why isn’t this pogrom arousing more international indignation? 
Certainly, Myanmar has become a destination for capital investment now 
that the United States, the European Union and Canada have accepted the 
government’s narrative of democratic transition and have largely lifted the economic sanctions
 they began applying after 1988 (measures that did not prevent China, 
India, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and multinational oil companies 
from doing business with the Burmese). Still, when Secretary of State 
Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Myanmar late last year and welcomed its 
first steps toward democratization, she also set down conditions for 
strengthening ties, including an end to ethnic violence. 
The plight of the Rohingyas begins with their statelessness — the denial
 of citizenship itself, for which Myanmar is directly responsible. Ms. 
Aung San Suu Kyi, though not as powerful as the military officers who 
control Myanmar’s transition, should not duck questions about the 
Rohingyas, as she has done while being feted in the West. Instead, she 
should be using her voice and her reputation to point out that 
citizenship is a basic right of all humans. On July 5, the secretary 
general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, appealed to her to speak up to help end the violence. 
To be sure, Bangladesh can do more. Its river border with Myanmar is 
unprotected; thousands of Rohingyas have been rowing or swimming it at 
night. But even though Bangladesh has sheltered such refugees in the 
past — hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas live here now, legally or 
illegally — it has been reluctant so far this year to welcome them, out 
of fear of encouraging an overwhelming new influx. Already, such fears 
have aroused anti-Rohingya sentiment among some Bangladeshis, and 
initially Bangladesh’s government tried to force the refugees back 
without assisting them. After some villagers risked arrest by sheltering
 refugees in their homes, the government began to offer humanitarian 
aid, before sending them back on their boats. Bangladesh should shelter 
the refugees as it has in years past, as the international community is 
urging.        
But the world should be putting its spotlight on Myanmar. It should not 
so eagerly welcome democracy in a country that leaves thousands of 
stateless men and women floating in a river, their corpses washing up on
 its shores, after they have been reviled in, and driven from, a land in
 which their families have lived for centuries.        
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment