Ali Latifi:
Today on What’s Unsaid: Who can the Rohingya rely on?
The current military rulers of Myanmar came to power in a February 2021 coup. Since then, they have been accused of massive rights abuses towards civilians, especially the Rohingya. Pacifist Farooq, a Rohingya poet-activist, told us about life in Rakhine state.
Pacifist Farooq:
Poetically, we can call it an open-air prison, because the government doesn’t even think of us as a human being. They call us illegal immigrants. You know, I have lived over there for 17 years, even if I go from one village to another I need permission. It’s an apartheid.
Latifi:
The junta aren’t the only ones, though. When armed ethnic groups like the Arakan Army started uniting to challenge the junta’s territorial control last November, they were billed as sources of hope, brave heroes taking on the violent and abusive military.
Now though, the Arakan Army, the most prominent of those groups, is being accused of employing much of the same violence and discrimination as the military junta.
Even Nobel Peace Prize laureate and supposed human rights defender Aung Sang Suu Kyi proved no friend of the Rohingya. In fact, the leader of Myanmar's semi-democratic government that was ousted by the military in February 2021 defended the alleged ethnic cleansing of the nation's Muslim minority. As former Rohingya MP Shwe Maung told us, it’s a no-win situation.
Shwe Maung:
Rohingya are so helpless. They could rely on, neither Myanmar military or Arakan Army. So, this is why, in this time, the genocide, and crime against humanity, or atrocity crime are happening. They are so helpless, so vulnerable.
Latifi:
So, in this environment of mistrust, how should humanitarian organisations operate?
In a country plagued by decades of civil war, allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and limits on basic democratic rights, who do they even work with?
This is What’s Unsaid. A bi-weekly podcast by The New Humanitarian where we explore open secrets and uncomfortable conversations around the world’s conflicts and disasters. My name is Ali Latifi, staff editor at The New Humanitarian.
On today’s episode: Who can the Rohingya rely on?
With us today is Maung Zarni. He's an academic, human rights activist and coordinator for the Free Rohingya Coalition. Zarni, thank you for joining us today.
Maung Zarni:
Thank you very much.
Latifi:
As we know, this is a very complicated, very complex topic. And my first question is trying to get at that. Because if we're talking about the former government of Aung San Suu Kyi, the junta that ousted it, the armed groups that are trying to take control from that junta, is there anyone amongst this group that the Rohingya people can somehow feel confident in, or feel as if they can turn to and rely on?
Zarni:
That's why my wife and I wrote this piece called ‘The Slow Burning Genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya’ as early as 2014. Over the last 40 plus years, the military-controlled state of Myanmar has singled out the Rohingya as a population unwanted, because they are primarily Muslim, with their legitimate claim to have an ancestral pocket of land next to one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, Bangladesh. So, that has been the military's primary objective to make sure that this Rohingya ancestral population doesn't have any claim on Myanmar. But the important point to point out here is that, the two groups that collaborated in the destruction of the Rohingyas are the Burmese military and the Burmese politicians, including Aung San Suu Kyi, who went to the International Court of Justice and denied that there was any genocide or rape happening or being perpetrated by her father's military. And so, the other group that is now coming to the forefront, as the spearhead of this continuing genocidal assault on the Rohingya: Rakhine Buddhists. Since 1978, Rakhine locals have played the role of collaborators with the Burmese military to destroy, to torch villages, to rape Rohingya women and girls and elderly women, and to loot vacated Rohingya villages. The Rakhines are the ones who take over the land that belonged to Rohingya who ran away for their survival. So I think that you know, this is a genocide triangle, and the local Rakhines play this role, and Arakan Army is only fueling and spearheading this resurgence of genocidal attack on Rohingya.
Latifi:
It's interesting you talk about this genocide triangle, because I was speaking to a colleague of mine who had moved to Myanmar shortly after Aung San Su Kyi was freed and essentially became the head of the government. And he said, the one thing you could sense everywhere you went was this very vehement anti-Rohingya attitude by everybody. Do you think that that's true and why do you think that that mentality has persisted for so long?
Zarni:
You know every population, every society, every one of us, we were not born with either love or hate towards certain groups. And we learn from schools. We learn from our elders. We learn from media organisations, churches and monasteries. You know, we learn from our governments and politicians who to hate, who to love. When you have a military-controlled state for 60 years that is hellbent on promoting xenophobia and Islamophobia, we are stuck with generations that have convinced themselves that Rohingyas are foreigners, illegal migrants. Migration into Burma has been a constant feature throughout history. So, to single out the Rohingya as simply migrants, unwanted in Burma, while ignoring that most of us have migratory backgrounds. Most of us are not pure-blooded Burmese, or Kachin, or Shan, or Rakhine. So, I think that, in and of itself, is a genocidal perspective.
Latifi:
I want to bring the topic back to this idea of the conflict between the junta and these armed groups because this is an issue that took off last November, and in this short amount of time, it seems like the narrative, at least amongst people who keep track of these things, has shifted. Initially when these territorial gains by these armed groups were first being reported, I noticed that in a lot of Western media, all of these armed groups were sort of deified. They were the hope of Myanmar challenging this violent, horrific junta. Did the actual people of Myanmar believe that these groups could be some kind of salvation, and really undo these decades of abuse and exclusion and conflict?
Zarni:
Yes, you know, when the coup took place in 2021, virtually every community throughout Burma took to the streets. But when the Burmese junta responded rather violently, most young people felt that the only way to oppose the junta, and to bring back at least a semblance of civilian democratic rule, was to join ethnic armed organisations that have been in existence for decades. And, many of us - including myself, you know, living in England - we thought this was something to be welcomed. The ethnic armed organisations and movements and communities, working together with the majoritarian Burmese dissidents, to end this 60-odd years of dictatorship, right. But that is not how things are panning out to be, because instead of post-ethnic, post-racial, inclusive, federal system, and you know, society, we are heading toward internal fragmentation, internal balkanization…
Latifi:
In a period of only six, maybe seven months.
Zarni:
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Latifi:
Starting in the fall, we were getting all kinds of pitches and stories and submissions that were essentially saying to the international community: Hey, now you don't have to work with the junta, you can work with these different armed groups to deliver aid. But, did you, and do those people who initially supported these groups, ever believe that they could be capable of fairly and properly distributing aid, or any better than the junta might be? I mean, did you think that men with guns would hand out, say - I don’t know - bags of flour?
Zarni:
Well, we cannot generalise all armed groups, as one type of unscrupulous, unprincipled, armed men. Yes, you're absolutely right. The armed groups will always exercise their might over any humanitarian principles or regard for human rights. But there are groups that are better than others, say, for instance, the Karen National Union. That has been in existence for 70 years and has at least four decades of working with UNHCR, or other humanitarian organisations. They have internalised certain humanitarian principles and a sense of fair mindedness, but there are also other groups that would use their military strength to deny or distribute access to food, depending on their preferences. But in general, the picture that is emerging is that armed groups are behaving like the Myanmar military, resorting to forced taxation and forced conscription. In one locality, you may find three or four different armed organisations knocking on your door, collecting money, or asking you to send your sons to their respective organisations. This is a chilling picture that is emerging in a situation where no central state is operating.
Latifi:
I’ll tell you this, I have a complicated image of armed groups just based on my own lived history because I'm from Afghanistan. I've also briefly covered the conflict in Syria, so I understand how these things can get very complicated very quickly. Is there a danger when, say, the outside media and politicians and such build up these different armed groups in conflicts where they may not like the group in charge? And why do you think this keeps happening all over the world?
Zarni:
You know, this Hollywood-type happy ending is something that readers and viewers like to feel. There has to be some kind of resolution where the groups that are portrayed as good guys prevail over the bad guys, right. I am not discounting or making light of the fact that Myanmar’s central armed forces or military bears the lion's share of responsibility for the violent and sorry state of Myanmar, because they have been in power, with overwhelming might. They are the largest armed organisation, right, with an Air Force and Navy, with unlimited supplies of weapons from China, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, you name it. But that said, I think what is being portrayed as, you know, freedom fighters, or democrats, or dissidents, by the international media, as well as by the local Burmese media outlets, are also not necessarily holier, more principled groups. I advised, and I am involved with the different dissident movements in Burma over the last 35 years, and I still am very active in advising different armed organisations and non-violent groups in the country. The situation in Burma is not just simply institutional or violent conflict. Hatred among different parties in conflict is growing by the day. We cannot have a peaceful and stable Myanmar when hatred is consuming everybody, and fear is consuming everybody. Even this morning, I woke up with a vivid dream of running away from military conscription. I live in England. I'm 60 years old. Even if I lived in Burma, I am not the conscription age of 18 and 35. Even I feel fear, you know, secondary fear, by talking to the young Burmese in the country on Zoom or on the phone. They're trying to run away. So, that's why I think this situation has to be stopped by some kind of international peacemaking process, and the media should take a step back, and stop promoting this good versus evil. Yes, there are good, and there are evil people and organisations. But this template is simply fueling the multiple conflicts in Burma.
Latifi:
I guess it still comes back to this issue if, on the one hand, people don't trust the junta, and on the other, it seems like groups like the Arakan Army are also losing their trust. Who can an organisation work with at this point? Is there anyone? How can they try and help the people?
Zarni:
No, there is nobody. Let me say this openly, and for the record. When ethnic armed organisations, as well as the Burmese junta are known to be committing war crimes, and crimes against humanity, you cannot look at them as partners in humanitarian aid delivery. I understand the International Crisis Group, among others, have been promoting this view that donor communities and governments should start, you know, working with these ethnic resistance organisations that have territorial control…
Latifi:
We've even received statements just like that.
Zarni:
What needs to happen is international actors taking a step back and say: Look, this is no longer good versus evil. We need to come up with a viable international framework, where both humanitarian access can be secured from the junta and from the ethnic organisations, but not as drivers in humanitarian aid delivery. There are multiple international organisations with decades of experience in delivering humanitarian aid in war situations. These are the organisations that should be at the table in discussion with the junta, in discussions with the ethnic resistance and armed organisations…
Latifi:
Are these talks happening right now though?
Zarni:
No, no, that is why I am pushing for some kind of a neighbour-led international conference in a place like Bangkok, or Dhaka. Bangladesh hosts one million Rohingya refugees, right. So Bangladesh has no chance to be able to repatriate, voluntarily, one million Rohingyas back to Rakhine, where the new rounds of killings and destruction are happening. So, Bangladesh has to be involved in formulating a comprehensive peace framework for the entire country. One thing that is very clear, and I've been making this point, and I'm Burmese myself; Burmese communities, either the generals or ethnic minorities, or the Aung San Suu Kyi and the political class; we have proven incapable of maintaining peace and stability in our own country for the last 75 years. There's nothing wrong with saying to the international community: We need help. We are caught in this vicious cycle of racism, fear, hatred, and violence. Therefore, I think it's important for the international community to consider a Cambodia-like peace process for Burma.
Latifi:
I guess I wonder, would the people of Myanmar accept the input of, say, Bangladesh, or Thailand, or any of its other neighbours. Do you think that would be acceptable to people in Myanmar?
Zarni:
The country is haemorrhaging. You know, thousands of young people are running away, right? Millions - half of the country - are finding it extremely difficult to put food on their table. The Burmese people are not thinking about how to bring about peace for the entire country, they're thinking and worrying about the next meal. And also additionally and importantly, it's in the interest of Myanmar's neighbours to step in and tell the Burmese of all different armed and political organisations, if you don't get your act together - which you don’t! - then we are going to have to have this international process that will help you restore peace and stability in your country.
Latifi:
My last question is a personal one to you. You were recently nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. What does that mean to you to be nominated and listed for something that focuses so much on peace and should have such meaning?
Zarni:
Well, I mean, I've been doing this since I was 25 as a student. I turned 60 last year, and I'm heading 61 next month. And so, you know, whatever its own flaws, this is the recognition that will put wind to the sail of any activist. Personally I'm happy, I'm pleased, and especially because the person who nominated for my push for reconciliation, you know, anti racism…Mairead McGuire, she is one of the most respected and very principled peace activists in the world, and she won the Peace Prize in 1976. Whether or not it results in the actual award, it’s secondary to me. You know, I'm already happy for the fact that she chose me out of so many activists. This is not about my ego, or my personal accomplishment. It’s just like something that enables me to do more. And, you know, whatever happens, I keep on doing what I've been doing for 35 years, with no difference.
Latifi:
I just realised the irony that Aung San Suu Kyi also won a Nobel Peace Prize. And now she's a big part of the problem herself.
Zarni:
Yeah, I remember, I was a student in California in 1991 when the award was announced on radio, and I was so happy because, as a Burmese, we had nothing that we should feel proud of. The country is in ruins, and the economy is in tatters. And, all we are known for is oppression and violence and racism. And here she was, and I was so happy. I supported her for 15 years, until about 2004, when I realised that Aung San Suu Kyi did not internalise words where she spoke beautifully, like human rights and human dignities, and you know, liberalism. She was a shining example for many in Asia, not just the Burmese. But when, politicians use words, but they did not mean it, or they did not believe it themselves, when push comes to shove, you know, she took sides with the killers, and racists and genocidals, so that's why I split long before you know, the world realised that Aung San Suu Kyi was all empty rhetoric.
Latifi:
Yeah, and it all seems to come back to this simplistic narrative of good guys and bad guys.
Zarni:
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah, we're always looking to cheer the good guys and usually the good guys are the guys who speak English really well, educated in the West. You see what I mean? Who are liberally tongued. You know that spit out humanitarian law, and stuff.
Latifi:
Exactly, the world is not a video game. Zarni, thank you so much for speaking with us today.
Zarni:
Yeah, thanks so much. Bye.
Latifi:
Maung Zarni is an academic, human rights activist, and coordinator for the Free Rohingya Coalition.
Please visit TheNewHumanitarian.org for ongoing reporting on humanitarian work in crisis zones across the world.
And what are people afraid to talk about in today’s crises? What needs to be discussed openly? Let us know by sending an email to: [email protected]. Subscribe to The New Humanitarian on your podcast app for more episodes of What’s Unsaid – our new podcast about open secrets and uncomfortable truths. Hosted by Obi Anyadike, and me.
This episode is produced and edited by Freddie Boswell, sound engineering by Mark Nieto, with original music by Whitney Patterson, and hosted by me – Ali Latifi. Thanks for listening!
