US envoy makes second Burma visit

 

Washington’s new envoy to Burma arrived in the Southeast Asian country on Monday for his second visit in two months, aiming to further the US strategy of engagement.
Derek Mitchell, who was appointed as the first US coordinator for policy on Burma in August, met the foreign affairs minister in the capital Naypyidaw during the two-day visit, Burma officials told AFP.
“Ambassador Mitchell plans to visit Burma frequently to build on our ongoing principled engagement, including dialogue with the Burmese government and local stakeholders,” said a US embassy spokeswoman in Rangoon.
“He uses every opportunity to raise with Burmese authorities our longstanding core concerns,” she said, adding that these included the release of all political prisoners and dialogue with opposition and ethnic minority groups.
Mitchell, a veteran policymaker on Asia, said this month that Burma’s nominally civilian government was showing “encouraging signs” of change but must commit to deeper reforms and halt violence against minorities if it wants sanctions eased.
He said that the freeing of more than 200 political prisoners in mid-October was welcome, but that more needed to be done for Burma to prove it was serious about a transition to democracy.
In addition to the prisoner release, officials in Burma have spoken out about curbing censorship and recently defied ally China by freezing work on an unpopular dam — moves few would have imagined a year ago.
Mitchell’s first visit in September included talks with ministers of the new government and opposition icon Aung San Suu Kyi.
His post was created when Congress, under then-president George W. Bush, approved a law on Burma in 2008 that tightened sanctions against the country, but the position was not filled at the time due to a political dispute.
After taking power in 2009, President Barack Obama’s administration changed tack, concluding that the sanctions aimed at isolating Burma had been ineffective.

Suu Kyi meets govt amid talk of return

Aung San Suu Kyi and Labour Minister Aung Kyi speak to reporters after their meeting in Rangoon (Reuters)

Aung San Suu Kyi held her fourth set of talks with Burma’s labour minister since the new government came to power in March amid speculation that she will reregister her National League for Democracy as a political party.
The opposition leader met with Aung Kyi on Sunday afternoon at a government guesthouse in Rangoon. In keeping with past meetings, few specific details have been released, although a statement after the session said the two discussed peace among ethnic groups and the release of political prisoners, as well as ongoing reforms to the country’s beleaguered economy.
Not long after a meeting in September, during which Suu Kyi urged the government to release political prisoners, an amnesty was announced that saw nearly 240 jailed activist and politicians freed.
Aung Kyi said yesterday that the government “will not stop” releasing prisoners, implying that another amnesty may be on the cards soon. As always, however, it remains mute on the fate of the nearly 1,700 inmates jailed for political activities. The government denies that it holds political prisoners.

Rumours are also circulating that Suu Kyi will attempt to reregister her party after it was disbanded earlier this year, paving the way for her official re-entry to Burma’s political arena after years spent on the sidelines.
Legal amendments have been approved that would allow the National League for Democracy to become a party again and its members able to contest for parliamentary seats in the looming by-elections, although Suu Kyi remains wary of committing herself.
The party was dissolved after it chose not to compete in last year’s elections, given that Suu Kyi, as a former prisoner, would be unable to run for office. But one of the amendments will overturn a ban on parties being recognised unless they contested three seats in the elections.
She told a press conference on Sunday however that the NLD would not make a decision until it had seen the small print accompanying the new law.
The 66-year-old also netted a result in a protracted legal battle against three individuals, including her brother Aung San Oo, whom she is suing for contempt of court.
Rangoon’s High Court accepted a lawsuit filed by Suu Kyi over an interview with Aung San Oo in the Monitor News Journal in which he claimed to have won a court case relating to a dispute over the University Avenue house where she was kept under house arrest, and which he claims ownership of.
The journal’s chief editor, Myat Khine, and the journal’s publisher, Wunna Kyaw Htin Hla Myint, are also subjects of the lawsuit.

Two killed by Arakan lightning strike

Location of Mrauk-U township in western Burma, where the accident took place (Google Maps)

Six people were knocked unconscious after a lightning bolt hit a farm hut in Arakan state earlier this month, two of whom died from their injuries.
The freak accident occurred in Watkamauk village outside Mrauk-U township on 19 October. The local hospital confirmed the two fatalities.
The six had reportedly been sitting inside the hut when a heavy storm hit the region.
“The lightning struck at 4.45pm and there were six people in the hut at the time. All of them were knocked out and four of them regained consciousness around 6pm or 7pm but they found the other two dead, as well as a buffalo and a cow,” said a local monk.
Bodies of the deceased were sent to Mrauk-U hospital that evening and doctors confirmed the cause of death as being struck by lightning. They were buried at Minthakyun cemetery in Mrauk-U.
On the same day a landslide in nearby Khitechaung village swept away a number of houses. “So far three bodies have been buried – apparently at least 50 people were killed. Now locals in the village are searching for more bodies,” said the monk.
Despite the deaths there, Arakan state was comparatively unscathed by the storm, which arrived from Bangladesh and last week caused havoc in Magwe division. Heavy flooding resulted in the deaths of more than 200 people, and caused widespread damage in several towns.

NLD close to decide on registration

 
An amendment to the electoral law has passed through parliament, with key amendments that were suggested by the National League for Democracy (NLD) and that would allow the party to take part in an upcoming by-election.
The party is now waiting for a copy of the new law before its central executive committee will vote on whether the party shall re-enter the fray. Key players however remain divided. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is said to be a proponent, whilst veteran founding member, U Win Tin, has expressed ambivalence.
“I don’t think it is really good to go into parliament,” he told DVB.
The key amendments however include the removal of the crucial clause that had said that “all political prisoners must be expelled from the NLD,” explains U Win Tin. Further the clause that parties shall “preserve and defend” the 2008 constitution, which would have been impossible for the party to abide by as they have repeatedly voiced their opposition to key elements of the constitution. This was reportedly changed instead to “respect” the constitution.
“It was said that we have to defend the constitution, which we can’t accept, we couldn’t accept a military constitution, so we refused to abide by that point,” says U Win Tin.
The key elements of concern were voiced by the party in their 2009 Shwegondaing proclamation states U Win Tin, which called for the release of all political prisoners and rewriting the 2008 constitution.
He states that the government’s overtures have not been complete. “All these things are not fulfilled yet, especially this constitution.”
One such area of concern was recognition of the 1990 election. The speaker of the Pyidaungsu Hllutaw, the combined national parliaments, was said to have “recognised” that poll in an interview with a local journal on Wednesday, although the practical implications of this were unclear.
Aung San Suu Kyi meanwhile met Labour Minister Aung Kyi for the fourth time since March on Sunday. Whilst neither party was particularly forthcoming with details of the meeting, the state mouth piece, the New Light of Myanmar, published questions that Suu Kyi answered after the two met.
“NLD’s registration depends on the law. The registration is the issue we can tell only after the law is approved and enacted. When the law is approved, we will hold a meeting. According to the rules and
regulations of our party, we can make decision after the meeting,” Suu Kyi was quoted as saying by the New Light of Myanmar.
She told journalists that the party would wait until the electoral law was enacted and also once they had time to review the law in full, as bills passed in parliament are often not made available to the public.
“We can tell when we see the law. We can’t tell now because we have not yet seen the law,” the Nobel Laureate added.
However there will likely be differences of opinion within her own party. Last year’s boycott induced a wholesale split in the party, with a group of prominent members leaving to form the National Democratic Force (NDF). This again split to form the New National Democratic Party, headed by Pyithu Hluttaw MP Thein Nyunt. Party member and youth wing co-ordinator, Yatha, told DVB that he believed the party would rejoin the NLD should it re-register.

Rohingya - Rakhine -- Debate or Dialogue between thinking men?

Dr. Habib Siddiqui

From the responses we have seen thus far, it is quite obvious that the extreme racists and bigots within the Rakhine Buddhist community are running out of wits after my recent posting of the Rohingya Identity and Demography in the British Era. There I showed that the Rohingya people, far from the Rakhine unsubstantiated claims, are an indigenous group of the Arakan State of Burma who had settled there from time immemorial, and hundreds of years before the ancestors of today's Rakhines settled. Having analyzed the demographic data of the English colonial period, I also pointed out that the so-called influx to Arakan during the British era actually had more to do with the Rakhine population than any other ethnic/religious group, and that the growth within the Rohingya Muslim community was a natural one.

Unfortunately, as we have noticed time and again, the racists within the Burmese and Arakanese Rakhine communities are uncomfortable to consider any other possibility beyond their own myths which challenge such absurd chauvinism. Prejudice truly dies hard!

Consider, e.g., the case of racist Aye Chan who says he is 'tired of arguing' with us. His entire thesis is built around showing that nowhere within the British records the name Rohingya appeared, and as such, by default, Rohingya is a dead horse. He is unwilling to accept the characterization of Rohingyas under Muslim/Mohamadan/Musulman categories. Were the Rakhines categorized as Rakhines by the British? Are Aye Chan and his ilk aware of the two books written by British army officers: (i) BURMESE OUTPOST by Anthony Irwin, published by Collins in 1945, and (ii) DEFEAT INTO VICTORY by Field Marshal Viscount Slim (considered one of the best books written by a military general on World War II) published in 1956? In these two books the authors mentioned Muslims of Arakan as ‘Musulman Arakanese’ and the Buddhists as ‘Maughs’. (As can be seen even the name Rakhine did not appear in those books to describe the Maghs of Arakan.)

Unless, one is willing to accept that colonizers had their own ways of and rationalization for categorizing people, which may not totally agree with those of the colonized, there is little one can do to educate that moron. Look at the Spanish Conquistadors that came to colonize the Philippines where they came across indigenous Muslims who practiced Islam, similar to the practice of the Spanish (Moor) Muslims. To these new invaders, thus, the Filipino Muslims came to be named as Moors and later Moro Muslims. In the Dutch colonization of South Africa, the Indian community was put under the category of 'colored' people. They were not called Indian South Africans. Here in the USA, while there is no record of African-American heritage (as to where they were plucked out of), we may know a White person with his precise European heritage. Thus, governors Cuomo (father and son) of New York State of the USA are known as Italian-Americans. Within the conquered people in the USA and Canada, the natives were called Red Indians and later Native Indians, while those people never called themselves as such and were actually divided on many matters, language, religion, etc. Does such categorization by the English/French colonizers change the mere fact that Cherokees lived in the Americas before the Europeans subdued them? If today, the Cherokees would rather like to self-identify by their heritage - the Cherokee name - who can deny that right to them? Only an utterly extreme racist with no brains, and full of hatred and chauvinism, would deny that right.

And there are plenty of such examples in our world that we can cite about the Rohingya case. Will that educate a half-educated person when he refuses to grow up as a thinking man?

And still within many good hearted and well-meaning Rohingya Diaspora there is a call for having a debate with such obscene racists within the Rakhine commmunity. Here below I share my views on the question of a debate:

1. I prefer dialogue or discussion than a debate unless the latter can be held under a neutral venue and moderated/administered by an unbiased person. Still, since debate has everything to do with winning, even by ridiculing the other side's shallow (?) views, at the end it leaves behind a bad taste amongst the participants and their respective adherents, further widening the gap between the opposing parties. Hardly, debate has brought differing peoples together for a common cause. As such, if the objective is to let the other party know where each party stands, a discussion/sharing of info/dialogue is often a more prudent approach. In these days of information superhighway we can achieve this without a confrontational debate by sharing our writings/postings, and asking/answering probing or poignant questions/points for elaboration. So, e.g., when Aye Chan says "we are lying about Rohingya", we want to ask "show us where we lied" (just as Dr Bahar had done in his note to Aye Chan). Such a dialogue with an opposing side can be more fruitful than wasting people's time and money to organize a debate with a racist. If still money and time are no problems a better way to spend such would be to hold our own seminars to educate folks on the either side to learn/share without allowing racists like Aye Chan to get a free ride at our cost. As I stated before, if he is all serious about a debate with us, let him organize it (without spending our money), and we shall be glad to take him up anywhere in the globe (of course, outside Burma). He cannot have a free ride at our cost!

2.  A frame of reference is very important for any such info sharing including a debate. Without such, the exercise may become a mindless one. If, e.g., demography in the post-1826 era is the issue, let's make it clear in the beginning and that way the history of who came earlier to Arakan is not a debating issue to bite upon. As the tens of articles and books have been written, including those by Syed Ashraf Alam, AFK Jilani, BaShin, Nurul Islam - UK and Ctg., Abid Bahar and many others - if anyone is interested to learn the truth on the Rohingya issues of our time there are plenty to educate oneself with. On the other hand, if one is close-minded, no words of mouth in a debate/discussion/dialogue would do any good as it has failed to even educate one from written words. At the most they can create doubt and that too, only under non-threatening environment possible outside a debate.

3. The more important question, therefore, is - what we gain and what we lose from such an interaction with a known racist like Aye Chan? If it is a zero-sum activity, we should shun any such temptation. Do we really expect Aye Chan to all on a sudden change his mind by participating in a debate with us, something that he could have been enlightened on his own through our writings? I seriously doubt that possibility.

4. What is value-adding for our purpose? Can we find moderate elements within the Rakhaing to accept or consider our side of the history, and share our findings so that he/she can start the groundwork within his/her community for a paradigm shift away from racism and hatred toward inclusion and acceptance? If we don't have any moderate Rakhine intellectual or politician or opinion maker, we would better serve the cause of the Rohingya by reaching out to moderate Burmans who can start that process of reconciliation or paradigm shift. If that also looks rather bleak, we may have to do what other such threatened minorities in the world have done, which would include knocking on the doors of power brokers in the global scene. For that we can study the history of newly emerged countries like East Timor and South Sudan, as a starting point. How lucky we shall be there, given the fact that what was possible for those territories may not excite xian overlords of our time when it comes to Arakan, that is closer to the Chinese domain of influence? Allah knows the best! But it is the last option we shall be left with minus the two earlier options.
Our best approach, IMHO, is to reach out to democratic minded Burmese that are open-minded and are willing to giving it a try towards federalism and democracy,  which are based on universal values and laws. The inclusion of Rohingya in Burma would be a win-win formula for the divided country, while the exclusion can only make it worse - not only morally but also economically. Our time served there to promote the Rohingya cause would be more fruitful than wasting time with Aye Chan. Who is Aye Chan anyway? He is a dishonest academic, a provocateur and a charlatan trying to masquerade as an intellectual for his racist extremist section of the people. Even if he were to accept Rohingya citizenship does he have any influence to repeal the racist 1982 Citizenship Law of Burma? I don't think so. Guys like him are used as pimps and prostitutes by illiberal undemocratic regimes to further their draconian measures, and then left to their repulsive, evil, pitiful selves.

5. What we truly need from our leadership is a strategy to repeal that Citizenship Law that is hemmed with short-term tactical moves that would InshaAllah allow the Rohingya people of Burma to live as a free people that is equal with other citizens of Burma. Inclusion not rejection. May Allah help us all in that endeavor!