 |
| Torching the houses in Oakkan Township on April 30, 2013 (Photo: Facebook) |
May 1, 2013
Maung Zarni
An official report into last year's violence in Rakhine State, launched
on April 29 at the government's foreign donor financed Myanmar Peace
Center, is intellectually, ideologically, empirically and analytically
flawed, underscoring President Thein Sein's bid to whitewash the recent
ethnic cleansing of Muslim Rohingya in the western state, which borders
Bangladesh.
Established on presidential order, the Inquiry Commission has been
conflicted from the day of its inception on August 17 last year. The
five individuals who were hand-picked to launch the report on Monday
were a curious mix themselves: the country's most famous political
comedian, the former daughter-in-law of the late despot General Ne Win, a
well-known former student leader, a well-known former exile, and the
president's personal adviser and interpreter.
Thein Sein and his allies are increasingly using various crisis inquiry
commissions, including the Aung San Suu Kyi-led Letpadaung Mountain
Copper Mine Inquiry Commission and now the Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing
Inquiry Commission, as public relations instruments to deflect public
attention from its spectacular failures in handling popular discontent,
state-sponsored violence against civilian populations, and mass
ethno-religious violence.
In instances where the role of government institutions was instrumental,
for instance in last year's pogroms in Rakhine State, inquiry
commissions have become useful tools of deflection for Naypyidaw. The
latest official report, originally classified as "secret", of the
Rakhine Sectarian Violence Inquiry Commission was strategically released
to counter the damning and credible April 22 report "All You Can Do is
Pray: Ethnic Cleansing and the Crimes Against Humanity in Myanmar",
released by US-based rights lobby Human Rights Watch.
The Inquiry Commission was stacked with cooperative technocrats, ethnic
minority leaders, socialites, religious leaders and so-called human
rights activists who were prepared or compelled to sign off on the
report despite knowing it contained verifiably false and distorted facts
about important issues under investigation.
As a product of such an unholy alliance, the commission's report is
patently un-professional, non-independent and unprincipled. Devoid of
crucial truths, it is a document utterly uninformed by any
well-established analytical concepts such as "ethnic formation",
"identity formation", "state's mobilization" in genocide studies,
"discourse", "nationalism", "history" - through which all scholars and
researchers of the social world attempt to make sense of even ordinary
human affairs, including genocides.
Ethnic labels in Myanmar, including for the Chin and the Kachin, were
externally imposed by British colonial administrators and American
Baptist missionaries on the "natives". These were disparate groups who
originally identified themselves tribally, as clans and along geographic
lines. The new ethnic labels were less than 50 years old upon
independence in 1948. Mal-informed by the prevailing pseudo-scientific
knowledge about race and ethnicity in Europe, the British colonials and
American missionaries grouped these "tribal peoples" in borderlands
together for administrative expediency.
As Indian economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen correctly pointed out
during a public seminar on Myanmar at Columbia University last
September, the geographical areas now known as Arakan or Rakhine State
frequently changed hands among neighboring feudal rulers, and boundaries
were always elastic in the pre-colonial era.
The Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing Inquiry report officially stresses how the
Rakhine feudal lords expanded their reach over territories in what was
then Bengal, while making light of the fact that there were Bengali
kings who ruled what was then the Kingdom of Arakan. Academics,
especially establishment ethno-nationalist historians, have long proven
capable of recounting the past only from a victor's perspective. The two
leading scholars on the Inquiry Commission are no exception.
For a commission that was led by two historically trained Burmese and a
retired Rangoon [now Yangon] University history professor, the report's
treatment of the history of a people whom the commission insisted on
referring to as "Bengali" is anything if not "ethnocidal" - that is, an
attempt to erase concrete historical evidence that the Rohingya, a
self-referential identity, existed as an ethnic community and was
officially recognized by the state under the democratic government of
prime minister U Nu.
This recognition of the Rohingya as an official constitutive ethnic
group of the country, as well as their full citizenship status, was not
confined to civilian politicians from the ruling political parties.
During its two-year caretaker government (1958-60), the army's senior
most leadership of General Ne Win and his deputies including Brigadier
Aung Gyi officially recognized the Rohingya by their own self-chosen
ethnic name: the Rohingya.
While Thein Sein's commission's historians claimed to have poured over
the archival records at the country's National Archives relevant to
these "Bengalis", to borrow the standard Rakhine reference to the
Rohingya of western Myanmar, they violated professional ethics as
researchers by blatantly omitting any concrete evidence that the
Rohingya were both an official ethnic group and citizens of Myanmar.
In fact, one doesn't need to bother going to the archives to verify the
Rohingya's ethnic identity and their citizenship status. Photographic
copies of the verifiably authentic official records (for instance,
Burma's Encyclopedia published by the Government Printing Press in 1964,
official transcripts of speeches by the Burmese generals bearing the
Rohingya's name, Burmese state newspaper clippings announcing a national
radio program for various ethnic languages including the Rohingya
language, parliamentary records, etc) are easily accessible in numerous
social media sites and on-line archives.
But the commissioners, either as anti-Rohingya Islamophobes or under
duress from the government that appointed them to the Inquiry
Commission, especially the professional historians among them, evidently
chose to weed out any historical evidence that contradicts Myanmar's
racist Citizenship Act of 1982, which was designed with input from
Rakhine nationalists and earlier anti-Muslim elements in the Ministries
of Defense and Immigration to strip Muslim Rohingyas both of their
ethnic identity and citizenship standing.
Forgotten history
In the hands of the commission's Cornell- and Harvard-trained
historians, including the likes of chairman Myo Myint, secretary Kyaw
Yin Hlaing and Professor Tun Aung Chain, the Rohingya's migratory
history began only in 1824 and going on to the Japanese advent in 1942,
when large scale communal violence between the Rakhine and the Rohingya
took place. The entire two decades of the 1950s and 1960s, during which
the Rohingya were both official ethnic peoples and had citizenship
rights, were completely skipped in the report's historical section. This
omission highlighted the anti-Rohingya Rakhine nationalist version of
history which denies that the Rohingya ever existed.
State-sponsored ethnocide, which began with the brutal immigration
campaign of 1978 which drove out nearly 200,000 Rohingya from the
Rakhine state across to neighboring Bangladesh, was "unproblematized" by
the commissioners, all of whom insisted that they were "politically
independent". The ethnocide is all the more shocking considering the
commission's ethnic diversity, including representatives from the ethnic
Kachin, Chin, Karen, Shan and other communities that have experienced
oppression from state authorities.
Ethno-religiously, the commission was a good mix - that is, except that
there was no Rohingya - nay, "Bengali" - representation. Dr Myo Myint
(Bama or Bama-identified), Khun Tun Oo (Shan), Jana Lahtaw (Kachin), Dr
Salai Andrew (Chin), U Soe Thein (Bama), Dr Yin Yin Nwe (Shan-Bama), Dr
Kyaw Yin Hlaing (Shan-Bama), Zarganar (Bama), Aung Naing Oo (Bama), Ko
Ko Gyi (a national security race?), Tin Aung Moe (Bama), Daw Than Than
Nu (Bama), (Vet) Dr Aye Maung (Rakhine with neo-Nazi views), Aye Thar
Aung (ultra-nationalist Rakhine), Reverend Margay Gyi (Karen), U Tun
Aung Chain (Karen). There are also Myanmar Muslims (ethnically Indians)
and Myanmar Hindu.
With the exception of the Muslim commissioners, none of these
ethno-religious diverse commissioners fought against the state-sponsored
ethnocide of the Rohingya in the form of the commission's vehement
opposition to the word "Rohingya". The two Muslim leaders who challenged
this ethnocide and stood up for the Rohingya's own "imagined identity"
were kicked out. Their crime? - frivolous charges of speaking to the
press about the inquiry while others who also spoke to the media were
left untouched.
As to be expected, the report made no mention of how politics got in the
way of establishing truths about the mass violence in Rakhine State. In
fact, the commission sought to confirm the popular anti-Muslim racism
without problematizing the recent growth of this increasingly virulent
strain of Islamophobia and anti-Bengali sentiment across all indigenous
national races of Myanmar.
The commission did raise passing concern about the 969, a neo-Nazi
movement ostensibly led by Buddhist monks from Myanmar's leading
teaching monasteries, and its divisive impact on ethnic and social
relations in society. But it fell far short of pointing out the need to
take seriously the new neo-fascist turn in the country's well-known
anti-Muslim, pro-Buddhist racism. The report's authors chose to describe
the now world infamous 969 rather mildly as "a campaign among the
Buddhist to defend their own faith and to encourage intra-Buddhist
commerce and trade".
All this is troubling but not unexpected. It was under the Religious
Affairs Director-Generalship of Commission chair Dr Myo Myint that there
was a proliferation of anti-Muslim quasi-religious publications, long
before the previous crop of ruling generals allowed for greater freedom
of press, assembly and speech. The leading voice of 969, Buddhist monk
Wirathu, recently told the Associated Press that his views were formed
as early as 2001.
Sadly, nearly half of the commissioners are my old, and now former,
friends. Their collective document is unmistakably Bama
racist/Orientalist in orientation, treating both communities in the
conflict with a typical popular Bama contempt and dislike. This is
adding insult to injury for both parties in the conflict, namely the
Rakhines and the Rohingya.
The Rakhines are portrayed essentially as lazy natives who can not
compete with the thrifty, business-savvy, hard-working "Bengalis"
without the intervention of the state and its blood-based neo-fascist
1982 Citizenship Act.
The Rohingya are described as elementary school children-like people
who, having obtained commission members' hand-phone numbers from their
Muslim contacts in Yangon, kept on calling the commission members to
blabber on about their sufferings and whine about their grievances.
These portrayals repeat a crucial racially charged popular narrative
that turns out to be factually incorrect, namely that three Bengalis
raped and brutally murdered a 28-year-old Rakhine Buddhist woman, the
supposed first spark of the following pogroms. This was pointed out to
me personally by a more honest commission member, Myanmar's most famous
political comedian and former political prisoner, Zarganar.
This rape case is vitally important because the commission identified it
as a key trigger for anti-"Bengali" mobilization by Rakhine
nationalists, politicians and parties, including some of the Rakhine
members of the Inquiry Commission, including Aye Maung, a vet-cum-MP in
Naypyidaw from the Rakhine National Development Party, an
ultra-nationalist group that has claimed to be working for the
"purification of Rakhine state".
But the arrested and alleged rapists were officially registered as two
Kaman Muslims and a Rakhine adopted by a Rohingya Muslim family in
Pauk-taw Township. Zarganar, one of the five members who was one of the
leading spokespersons for the commission at the press conference where
the report was launched, told this writer in no uncertain terms that he
interviewed the doctor in Rakhine state who performed the post mortem of
the raped woman's corpse.
According to this videotaped interview, the alleged Rakhine rape victim
bore no sign of having been raped. Yes, she was brutally murdered and
her jewelry was gone. But she was certainly not raped, recounted
Zarganar, based on his one-on-one recorded interview with the doctor.
The doctor was eventually forced by the authorities to sign the official
post-mortem report that established the rape that did not take place.
Then there was no mention of the "suicide in police custody" of one of
the alleged rapists - Htet Htet, a non-Bengali adopted son of a Bengali
family. Nor was there any mention of the fact that his freshly widowed
wife was also found dead, allegedly having "drowned" in a local well.
Was there foul play? It appears that Zarganar, the well-respected
political comedian and dissident who went to jail four times since the
1988 pro-democracy uprisings crushed by the military, was compelled to
put his name to the official commission report which contained
statements and misinformation which he himself knows are patently and
verifiably false.
The entire report is riddled with inter-contradictions and
inconsistencies that are not explained. For instance, the report raises
the issue of the lack of or weak inter-agency coordination among the
army, intelligence, civil administration, immigration, attorney
general's office and Rakhine chief/prime minister's office. It discusses
how and why the security forces and constitutive agencies only listened
to direct orders from Naypyidaw.
But the commission chose not to ask why Naypyidaw failed to issue orders
to provide adequate measures to protect the targeted Rohingya
communities. Instead, the National Defense and Intelligence Council (or
Kar-lon in Burmese) did nothing to mobilize security forces to protect
the Rohingya, troops which Thein Sein and his deputies knew would obey
only direct orders from ministerial headquarters.
Perhaps one silver living in the dark episode is that the report
accurately states that local authorities in Rakhine State have
absolutely no power to order security forces, including army, police,
and border-control interagency troops, to do anything to quell mass
violence. This was and still is something only Thein Sein's central
government can do.
Command questions
That begs the question: why did the union level leadership of Thein Sein
and his deputies on the Council in Naypyidaw choose not to mobilize the
troops to restore order while the same security troops were called in
to firebomb sleeping Buddhist monks protesting a China-invested mining
project at 2 am using canisters containing white phosphorous? Alas, this
is a question that fell outside of the purview of the presidential
commission.
Furthermore, vague if not imaginary statistics are cited throughout the
186-page document without accompanying narratives or explanations. The
commission did not even bother to account for its own official
statistics from the government. The fact is that the greatest number of
deaths and destruction were borne by the Rohingya. And yet a highly
disproportionate number of the Rohingya vis-a-vis the Rakhine have been
tried.
In the first wave of Rohingya-Rakhine violence in June last year, 4,188
Rohingya homes were destroyed while the Rakhine suffered the loss of
1,150 homes. In the second wave of violence in October, 2,371 Rohingya
homes were destroyed as opposed to only 42 homes that belonged to the
Rakhine. And again, out of a total of 1,835 arrested in connection with
the mass violence, 1,589 are Rohingya and only 246 are Rakhine.
Perhaps the scholarly presidential investigators on the commission could
advance and test a hypothesis that the economic productivity of Rakhine
Buddhists (all Buddhists in Myanmar?) must be inversely correlated with
the destructive capacity of the group. For the report orientalized the
Rakhine as a low-productivity group, or more crudely, lazy natives.
The commission's official statistic implies the awesome power of a small
group of Rakhine - 246 to be exact - to destroy thousands of homes and
dozens of mosques in about a dozen different towns and cities and make
over 120,000 Rohingya refugees homeless, shelter-less, internally
displaced persons in a span of just five months.
If this number of Rakhine terrorizers, arsonists and slaughters does not
seem quite convincing given the magnitude of death and devastation they
had wrought throughout northern and southern Rakhine State, then who
else aided and abetted the principal terrorizers among the Rakhine who
wanted a Rakhine State only for the Rakhine?
There is no mention in the report of a single case wherein any official,
security or civil, was held accountable for his or her leadership
failure, or worse, participation in the pogroms. According to Zarganar,
his official request that the investigators be allowed unfettered access
to all the important officials alive, past and present who have served
in western Myanmar over the past 25 years was never granted. He told me
that many of the officials were transferred to remote places after the
commission was formed on August 17.
So what is Naypyidaw trying to hide? That question, of course, also lied
outside the mandated scope of the Presidential Inquiry Commission.
The spread of rumors and hate-speech against Rohingya on social media
was touched on as an important issue, and yet no attempt was made to
point out that Thein Sein's spokespersons, Major Zaw Htay and Deputy
Minister of Information Ye Htut, are internationally known figures who
use social media to disseminate deliberately false news and engage in
hate and fear-mongering.
At the time of the crisis, Zaw Htay was spreading grossly inaccurate
news, including that "a group of armed radical Muslims have entered
Rakhine from [the] Bangladesh side". Meanwhile, Ye Htut spread official
lies, including the notion that there was "no need for further provision
of shelter for the Bengali IDPs because the government has provided
them with everything for the coming rainy season".
The report rightly recommends urgent provision of adequate shelter and
other humanitarian assistance because of the dire, overcrowded IDP camps
for 100,000-plus "Bengali". Echoing the International Crisis Group's
monocausal explanation that communal violence often accompanies
democratic openings, the report sees greater freedom of speech as a
causal explanation for the spread of hate speech.
The commission decided it was not worth noting that it purged U Nyunt
Maung Shein and U Tin Maung Than, the two prominent and non-pliant
Muslim members of the commission who were actually pushing for truths
about the communal violence. That push obviously did not go down well
with chairman Dr Myo Myint and Border Control Minister Lt-General Thein
Htay.
According to U Tin Maung Than, two days after a 15-minute heated phone
conversation last autumn over what should be reported to commission
patron Thein Sein and how frequently reporting should be done, he was
expelled from the commission in the same manner he was appointed - that
is, with no prior knowledge nor explanation.
Chairman Myo Myint was on record saying to U Tin Maung Than that "the
welfare and security of these people are not the commission's
responsibility, nor do you need to send President Thein Sein important
updates." Although Zarganar pushed to get access to crucial heads of
security forces stationed in Rakhine State to conduct a proper inquiry,
he later complained that both the commission's chairman and secretary
did their best "to derail the inquiry".
Inquiry commissions are generally not about seeking or finding
incriminating evidence that will lead their commissioning presidents to
the gallows. Thein Sein may be a liar with a straight face but he ain't
dumb. Preemptively, the eight mandates outlined by Thein Sein in fact
did not include any study of the role of the state, its institutions, or
the responsibilities of the national leadership.
Above all, the report simply reinforced the state-sponsored Rohingya
ethnocide and chose to overlook the elephant in the room: the
military-led state and its crucial role in the Rohingya ethnic
cleansing. Instead of shedding light on the utter inaction of the
characteristically trigger-happy Myanmar security forces, the commission
focused instead on highlighting the need to modernize these already
heavily and happily armed troops.
Rigged recommendations
The first dozen recommendations in the four-page English-language
Executive Summary of the report are all about security sector
modernization, not security reform, while lip service is paid to the
need to act in line with international human rights standards and
Myanmar's international treaty obligations.
The report recommends that the international community, spelled
Washington, help to equip security forces with new toys, including CCTV
capacities, assault speedboats, and various new weapons to deal with the
cross-border problem of Bangladesh's "population explosion". Certainly,
the US Pentagon would love to help bring the Tatmadaw (Myanmar's army)
and other auxiliary units up to the human rights standards exercised at
the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or Guantanamo Bay detention
facilities in Cuba.
For a report that bore the signatures of 24 technocrats, establishment
historians and academics, wealthy local merchants and traders,
socialites and religious leaders, the recommendations about security
sector modernization are rather impressive, so much so that one wonders
if the report was the commission's gift to the Ministry of Defense and
its next generation of generals.
For a report littered with references to "human rights" and
"international legal norms", its contents shows no sign that
commissioners even bothered to glance at the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, or the UN Conventions on the Prevention and Punishment of
Genocide. Nor did the commission deem it worthwhile to consult with
either the research findings and reports from the Arakan Project or the
National University of Galway's authoritative "Crimes Against Humanity
in Western Burma".
In fact, the commission considered the use of the term "ethnic
cleansing" as part of an attempt to unduly internationalize local issues
and an act of international nongovernmental organization (INGO)
exaggeration. Or, perhaps, the commissioners felt human rights
documentation was out of their professional depth without such training
or an official political mandate. The commission must have known,
however, that other non-native organizations such as Human Rights Watch
were going to do an independent and more professional job of
investigating the violence.
Meanwhile, the commissioners seemed very much at ease when advocating
"voluntary" population control of the Rohingya. The commissioners were
of the view that this rapid procreation or "population explosion" among
the people they insisted on calling "Bengalis" made worse the already
acute sense of collective existential insecurity among the Rakhine.
There is detectable patriotic sentiment in the reports finding that 80%
of the fertile agricultural acreage in certain locations of Rakhine
State are now in the hands of hard-working and thrifty "Bengali"
agricultural workers and land-owners while landless and lazy Rakhine
have fallen deeper into destitution.
Even Myanmar's civil society, manufactured by the European Union and
international donor funding, must be pleased with the commission's
emphatic framing of the genocide as simply "communal violence". Alas,
this is the civil society that refuses to call ethnic cleansing in their
midst by its proper name.
In the words of Aung Myo Min, a Myanmar human rights educator from the
Human Rights Education Institute: "In such a sensitive situation, the
use of the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' is unacceptable. Ethnic cleansing
means eliminating other ethnic groups. This is not the case [in Rakhine
State]."
George Orwell, the inventor of the phrase "double-speak", worked in
Myanmar during the colonial period in the 1920s. Orwell's ghost
continues to roam in "democratic" Myanmar, possessing the dissidents,
technocratic and intellectual mountebanks, ethnic nationality leaders,
religious figures, human rights educators, and civil society leaders. In
sum: Allah bad, Buddha good.
Buzzword phrases such as "clean government", "good governance" and
"transparency" perversely litter the commission's report. No doubt the
new policy of this soon-to-be clean government will be to approach the
issue of "communal violence" holistically, including through the
preventative use of the "weapons of conflict resolution" the report
recommends the international community provide to Myanmar's
ethnocide-complicit security forces.
A truly independent inquiry would have recommended the establishment of
an early warning system of future genocidal waves. It also would have
recommended more empirical research that probed the deeper causes of
last year's "communal violence" in Rakhine State. The commission's
varnished findings suggests the need for a new resolution research
center, located perhaps near the Rohingya mass graves which Human Rights
Watch uncovered.
Scholars in the field of genocide studies have established that
extraordinary mass violence, including ethnic cleansings, are seldom
simply domestic or internal events in nation states. Rather, they
frequently have an international dimension. These dark events generally
take place in an international environment where external players are
more concerned with their own strategic and commercial interests than
large scale human sufferings, be they in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sri
Lanka, and now Myanmar.
Donor governments of the pro-human rights West have reacted with
hostility to Human Rights Watch's characterization of their newfound
business and strategic partners in Myanmar as "ethnic cleansers" and
"criminals against humanity". Thein Sein's inquiry, on the other hand,
is sprinkled with the liberal discourses of conflict resolution,
humanitarian management, and national reconciliation. It is thus no
doubt more palatable to the international community of diplomats,
investors and military strategists determined to cozy up to his
self-proclaimed "democratic" regime.
If anything, the Rohingya Ethnic Cleansing Inquiry Commission report
offers a hint of things to come out of Thein Sein's Myanmar Peace
Center, into which foreign donors have already poured millions of
dollars to pursue state-sponsored "peace" with the Kachin, Karen, Shan,
Chin and other ethnic victims of over 50 years of state-sponsored
terror. One can only hope that these ethnic communities are not given
similar racist treatment as that suffered by the Rohingya.
Maung Zarni is a Burmese activist blogger (www.maungzarni.com) and
visiting fellow of Civil Society and Human Security Research at the
London School of Economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment