Kavya Chandrasiri, who created this image, 'Accept the Rohingya' is 12 years old. All rights reserved.Two months ago, 20 days into the latest round of
indiscriminate, unimaginable violence against them, I posted an article
on the genocide of the Rohingya. My emotions were raw. My reaction to the
stories and images coming out of Myanmar (via Bangladesh) was visceral and
all-consuming. I was unable to focus on my life, my mind refused to allow me to
“just carry on”.
Two months on, I have
carried on. My emotions are less raw, the tragedy less all-consuming. This is
both my guilt and my sanity. “It is perfectly normal”, I tell myself. But I dare
not ask if “perfectly normal” is good enough, in the face of such cruelty, violence
and hatred, so completely beyond the norm. And so, I am compelled to introspection.
This article is an outlet for this introspection and
reflection. It does not attempt to add more to the mountain of coverage of the
crisis: to critiquing Aung San Suu Kyi, exposing the scale of the humanitarian
challenge or condemning the Myanmar military. This has all been done, and will
be done again. Instead, my gaze shifts inward – to myself and others like me.
Me the professional whose job it is to protect, provide coverage, analyse,
advocate. Me the educated, middleclass layman, who is interested in the world
and has a sense of social justice, but doesn’t quite know what to do with it.
Me the consumer of news, armchair critic and part of the status quo. Me, who is
one of Us, who if we really put our minds to it, can begin to change the world.
Me, who is one of Us, who if we really put our
minds to it, can begin to change the world.
I hope this article will provoke some thought and debate. I
do not claim to have the answers. But I do think a first step is acknowledging
that I am part of the problem as well as solution.
1. Genocide, ethnic
cleansing, inter-communal violence, a quarrel. Semantics matter
A journalist I have much respect for, whose coverage of the
unfolding crisis has been immense, said of my previous article that it was not
helpful to use the word “genocide” in this situation. According to him, “ethnic
cleansing” is to be preferred. Indeed, this has become the phrase of global
media consensus.
It is also one that I am deeply uncomfortable with. The term
“ethnic cleansing” is not an inaccurate description of the situation, the same
way “roughed up” is not an inaccurate description of torture. Both are
non-legal euphemisms which do not connote or demand the accountability of
perpetrators, and an obligation to prevent and protect. “Ethnic cleansing” was actually
coined by the genocidaire Slobodan Milosevic, to gloss over the Bosnian
genocide he presided over. At best, it is a journalistic term of art, which is
widely understood today as being akin to a crime against humanity. And so, I
find it difficult to accept that the use of the legal term “genocide” is “not
helpful” and that the term “ethnic cleansing” is to be preferred. I find myself
asking, “not helpful” to whom? I find myself asking, “not helpful” to whom?
But these are questions at the pointy edge of the discourse.
For far too long, the atrocities against the Rohingya were labelled both within
and outside Myanmar as “inter-communal violence”. A phrase which implies parity
between two conflicting parties and which extracts the state from the equation.
In her recent first visit to Rakhine State, Aung San Suu Kyi even used the term
“quarrel” to describe the situation. As if in her mind, the over one million
Rohingya victims (who fled, were killed or are trapped) on the one hand, and
the all-powerful military/state and racist civilian mobs on the other, could be
reduced to an analogy of two grumpy teenage siblings having a spat over tv
channels.
I offer two reflections on this
question of semantics. First, we owe it to the victims and the issue, to choose
our words carefully, not based only on the most recent crisis, but on a deeper,
richer and longer-term understanding of the history of persecution, exclusion
and suffering of the Rohingya. It is this deeper analysis that has led some
(including me) to conclude that a genocide has been unfolding before our eyes
for some time. If my only reference point was August 2017, my conclusion too
may have been different.
Secondly, the technicalities of
whether or not systemic rape, torture, arson, deprivation of nationality,
enforced malnutrition, confinement in camps, denial of health and education,
restrictions on marriage and children, and other gross human rights violations
amount to genocide can and must be debated by experts. But we will do well to
remember that the labels we use do not change the nature of the experiences of
those at the receiving end. The enduring trauma of watching helpless as your
child is being burnt alive, or your mother is being raped is as excruciating,
unimaginable and life-changing, whichever label the international community
decides to use.
2. ARSA terrorists and
the Burmese state – the world judges the perpetrators, not the crime
The most immediate reactions to the events since 25 August
were very insightful. Many countries were nuanced in their response to the atrocities
committed by the Myanmar military, which were touted as a “clearance operation”.
They were quick to point out the state’s right to protect
its territorial integrity, and were supportive of state efforts to root out
terrorism. No state questioned if the ARSA attacks were the excuse Myanmar had
been waiting for, or looked at the atrocities in the context of Myanmar’s decades-long
track record on the Rohingya. The gripe was with
the degree of force used by Myanmar and its indiscriminate nature. It was not
with the fact that force was being used at all.
The gripe was with the degree of force used by Myanmar and
its indiscriminate nature. It was not with the fact that force was being used
at all. And so, Myanmar was called on to carry out its clearance operation with
restraint. This is akin to asking a rapist to in future, only commit sexual harassment.
By contrast, condemnations of ARSA – the fledgling militant
outfit – were fast, furious and uncompromising. The killing of 12 police
officers was condemned without qualification; not so, Myanmar’s killings,
rapes, arsons, forced expulsion etc., of Rohingya in the hundreds of thousands.
This duality of response is telling of a deeper (perhaps the
deepest) problem in global politics. And it is not just limited to state
responses. States are at the centre of the status quo, and states will be
extremely conservative and cautious in their criticisms of other states, while
being liberal and (almost) uninhibited in their criticisms of actors who
confront or threaten states.
It is not a love of other states, but self-interest, which
drives this perspective that underlines much of mainstream discourse by state
and non-state actors alike. Any statement critiquing a state must be qualified
to be taken seriously. By contrast, qualified criticisms of terrorist outfits
are often dismissed – you cannot talk to terrorists after all.
This duality is not limited to condemnations, it also
relates to who is believed in the first place. A victim’s account will only be
believed with supportive evidence. A state’s account will only be disbelieved
with evidence to the contrary.
And so, we must be more critical of where we position
ourselves in this discourse, and how we react to it. We must question power. We
must question who controls the narrative. We must remember that states do
commit acts of terrorism too.
3. Muslim, illiterate,
distant, poor – some victims are not “us”
A related issue is the identity of the victims. The Rohingya
are distant from the consumers of media. Geographically and culturally distant
from the power centres of the west, and distant in terms of literacy, class,
social status etc., from the elites closer to home. While the genocide of the
Rohingya is dominating the media landscape like never before, the response it
is evoking is more of sympathy than empathy. While there have been public
protests, these have not captured the wider imagination. There has been no
lighting up of global monuments in their name. For they are a “they”, and not an
“us”. There has been no lighting up of global
monuments in their name. For they are a “they”, and not an “us”.
Perhaps this is why inevitably, this current crisis will
recede from our memories and be forgotten, until the next one yet again takes
us by surprise.
4. Gender. Always gender
The gendered violence against the Rohingya is deeply distressing,
and an extreme reminder of the prevailing inequality of women in the world
today.
There is nothing new about the notion of sex as power and rape as
a crime against humanity; but the “oldness” does not make this reality any
easier to digest. Further complicating the picture is that advocates for
Rohingya rights often struggle with how to process and articulate the place of
women in Rohingya society. A conservative culture, it is not uncommon for
Rohingya women to be controlled by men. Women are likely to be the last to
flee, the last to eat, the last to be considered worthy of education.
When Rohingya women are sexually assaulted by their men, they
often have nowhere and no one to turn to. If their assault comes to light, it
rarely leads to the assaulter being held to account. The more likely outcome is
the woman being blamed, punished and even outcast. Even in societies where women
have access to relatively fair justice systems, the stigma around sexual
assault remains a huge barrier to justice. And so, the impact of decades-long
state policies of exclusion, which have eroded any access Rohingya may have had
to the Myanmar justice system, should not be underestimated. Victims can be perpetrators too. Nothing is
straightforward.
The rape of Rohingya women by the Burmese military – often in the
presence of their families – may compel this persecuted community to confront
its own inner demons. A woman who claims she was raped by her neighbour under
the cover of night may be easily dismissed. Less so, a woman who was raped by
the oppressive military in the light of day.
The power of men over women is often seen as a separate
issue, to be addressed through separate strategies, after the “main” issue has
been addressed, as if men and women live in different worlds. But victims
can be perpetrators too. Nothing is straightforward. And so, the challenge we
face is to speak the truth, even where this may undermine our own tidy
narrative.
5. The UN, the EU,
ASEAN, the OIC. The international community will consistently fail those that
matter least
The international community’s response to the crisis has
been weak and fragmented. The UN Security Council, which is best placed to
intervene, has not acted beyond issuing statements. The recent UN General
Assembly Resolution exposes the moral deficit of the Security Council. Nonetheless,
the number of abstentions and votes against, even for a relatively “light
touch” Resolution when considering the gravity of the situation, is telling.
The EU still does not use the word “Rohingya” in its
statements and even welcomed the repatriation deal signed between Myanmar and
Bangladesh, which could see Rohingya returned mass-scale into internment camps
run by their persecutors. The principle of non-interference continues to
hamstring the ASEAN and the OIC has not been able to exert much pressure.
All states have skeletons in their closets, indeed, for
many, the skeletons are on public display. The world order, ostensibly based on
the principles of international law, is in reality maintained through a
delicate balance of geo-political self-interest and power. And so, while lip
service is paid to noble ideas, in truth, a group as powerless as the Rohingya
has no true friends. In truth, a group as powerless
as the Rohingya has no true friends.
This is not a new revelation. Myanmar has time and again
been given the signal that it will be allowed to exterminate and expel the
Rohingya with impunity. If 2012 and 2016 were test runs, this is closer to the
real deal. Still, some opinion pieces advise caution, warning of derailment of Myanmar’s
supposed democratisation and calling for international restraint. As if, what
the world needs is more false reasons to not protect people from being massacred.
But in the face of “nation-building”, “state-sovereignty”
and “geo-politics”, the powerless are but for bargaining away. The global
response to the Rohingya crisis, not just since August 2017, but for many decades,
exposes the falseness of words such as “never again” and “no one left behind”,
which flow so easily off the lips of world leaders.
And so, advocates for Rohingya rights have to keep up the
pressure, but also find new ways to do so. How to be principled, pragmatic AND
effective in the face of such apathy to suffering is the perennial dilemma.
6. The politics of power
also plays out among the media and NGOs
The big fish – be they international media or NGOs – swoop
in when an issue becomes newsworthy. This is inevitable, and indeed, this is an
important role that must be played. But often, the manner in which this happens,
by drowning out the small, grass-roots, single-issue organisations that live
and breathe the Rohingya issue, is both problematic and counterproductive.
While there has been a lot of excellent coverage of the
crisis, some of the analysis provided by the biggest media outlets has been
simplistic and naïve, failing to take into account the history of the issue.
Those who work every day on the ground are not given enough airspace to weigh
in. They do not have the right affiliation, or do not speak the right language.
The reputations and livelihoods of celebrated journalists,
photographers and organisations are often built on the expertise and contacts
of “local fixers”, who remain invisible. The internationals (of whom I am one) come
to the issue with their own worldviews. They are outsiders, with their own
baggage and perspectives, and their own limited understanding of the politics
and culture of Myanmar and Bangladesh. Their writing and recommendations shape
the views of media consumers. The perspective of a small NGO or national
activist may be resolutely ignored, but the same point being made by an “international”
is less likely to be. The perspective of a small
NGO or national activist may be resolutely ignored, but the same point being
made by an “international” is less likely to be.
There are of course exceptions, and great examples of strong
collaboration. But this is an area where much needs to be done. Not only
because it is morally indefensible to build reputations, receive accolades and increase
income off the expertise of those who are not credited. But also because of the
expertise and wisdom we are denying the world, by not promoting voices on the
ground.
7. The west’s simplistic
and naïve understanding of Buddhism is ignorant orientalism
Despite this being 2017 and Buddhism being a world religion,
it continues to be viewed as being exotic and mystic by an alarming number of
people, who are simply flabbergasted that such violence and hatred can be
carried out in the name of a religion so peaceful. It is the same ignorance,
which perceives Buddhists as peaceful, that perceives Muslims as violent. It is the same ignorance, which perceives Buddhists as
peaceful, that perceives Muslims as violent.
In truth, all religions are flawed, but by and large,
promote peace, tolerance and love. It is not religion which is the problem, but
the closeness of religion to centres of power. When religious institutions are
in the seats of power, or when religions are seen as routes to power, terrible
things are done in their name. This has historically been true of Islam in the
Middle East and some Asian countries, Christianity in the west and some African
countries, Judaism in Israel, Hinduism in India and Buddhism in countries like
Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand. There is nothing profound about this insight.
But the failure to see Buddhism this way, provides a deeper insight into how
and why the images of certain religions are carefully shaped.
8. It must be exhausting
to hate
One of the things which struck me more than before, with the
August 2017 atrocities, was the level of hatred being spewed against Rohingya
and anyone advocating on behalf of their rights. As a close follower of the
Rohingya issue for almost ten years, I am no stranger to hate speech against
them. However, just as the violence has now ratcheted up a notch, so has the
hatred.
I have two thoughts on this. Firstly, it must be absolutely
exhausting to hate with such intensity. How does one keep it up? And how does
one square off such indiscriminate hatred and wilful ignorance against any
notion of self-respect? Surely it must get tiring to send the same old
caricatured responses and cartoons out in response to a growing mountain of
credible information of atrocities against the Rohingya?
Secondly, how do we process and address such hatred? There
have been some very good analyses of the growth of hate speech in Myanmar, but they
all appear to falter at the point of solutions. They speak of building trust
and peace between the communities, a discourse that takes us back into the
territory of “intercommunal violence” and related assumptions of parity and shared
responsibility. I am in no way suggesting that this is a straightforward issue.
But there must be clearer acknowledgement of the inequality
of the situation and the deep structural disadvantage of one group. Relatedly, we
need to be speaking the language of accountability louder, and emphasising that
there is no place for hate speech in a rule of law-based society. It is only in
parallel to this, that deeper engagement with the drivers and builders of
hatred amongst the majority communities, and efforts to build bridges between
communities will stand any chance. We need to be
speaking the language of accountability louder, and emphasising that there is
no place for hate speech in a rule of law-based society.
9. Human rights are not
a factor. They are a framework, above factors
The UN Myanmar country team has come under severe criticism
for its failings, including the shelving of reports which warned of the
likelihood of further widespread violence. The World Food Programme withdrew a
report on levels of malnutrition faced by Rohingya after receiving push-back
from the state. In 2014, a senior UN official in Myanmar told me that the
Rohingya, by insisting they be identified as “Rohingya” in the (then) upcoming
census, were the drivers of the conflict.
It is no secret among those working on Myanmar, that some
development actors have exchanged their silence (and complicity) for access. It
is not just the UN, it is the international community writ large. The economy,
national interests, state sovereignty, humanitarian protection: these are all
factors thrown in the face of the human rights advocate. The answer is always “yes
human rights, but…”. The answer is always “yes
human rights, but…”.
It is disheartening to see human rights being viewed this
way by those who should know better. In reality, human rights should not be
seen as one of many factors fighting for the same space, but rather, as a
framework and set of principles which allows for various competing factors to
be weighed against each other on the basis of proportionality, reasonableness
and other tests. The human rights framework is sophisticated enough to provide
answers, where such tensions exist.
The obligation of all UN agencies is to hold human rights at
their very core, and to fulfil their respective mandates in accordance with
principles of human rights. This does not happen in reality. Hostile states are
able to pick the different arms of the UN apart, working with some, and not
with others, because human rights are not at the core of all. Until and unless
this changes, the UN will fall short of protecting the most vulnerable. Always.
It is not just the UN. It is NGOs as well. There needs to be
greater cohesion and trust between the human rights, humanitarian, development
and other NGOs. All our work must be underpinned by an unshakeable commitment
to human rights. This is our duty.
10. The “industry” is
enriched by suffering
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth
that it is the unimaginable suffering of groups like the Rohingya, which feeds
the human rights and humanitarian industries. Organisations will balance their
budgets and grow, will accumulate resources and strengthen their reach on the
back of the Rohingya genocide. Funding applications will exploit the suffering
of victims of persecution to strengthen their chances of success. The power
imbalances between international and local actors will play out in new ways as
more money is freed-up. It is this discomfort which
will drive us forward.
There are no easy answers. Organisations have to survive and
are often pitted against each other in an increasingly difficult funding
climate. Nonetheless, we should be deeply uncomfortable with this reality. It is this discomfort which will drive us
forward in more collaborative, respectful and effective ways.
A final thought
With the passing of time, fewer and fewer people will remain
engaged and concerned with this issue. However, as we become more
compartmentalised in our work, it is important to recognise that some of the
challenges we face are common. They go deeper and affect us all. The world
order is failing the Rohingya and it will fail others. With each failure,
thousands of people will have been betrayed by a world that promised dignity
and equality for all.
The question is, what will we do about it?
