ASEAN debate - Rohingya Genocide or not?

As I mentioned in my two last articles (click here and here), when a genocide takes place, all kinds of linguistic camouflage are often used by people within various governments and world bodies that don't want to take the responsibility of stopping it. 

When the Tutsis were victims of genocide in Rwanda, it was depicted as an ethnic trouble, a sectarian trouble, nothing too serious for the African Union to seriously intervene, or the UN to engage into. During the Bosnian crisis, for too long the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims was portrayed as a small matter without depicting correctly who were the targets of a genocidal campaign. The shelling of Bosnian civilian population was not even mentioned. Here see the excerpt from a book (Goldhagen's - Worse than War) - 
"Mike Habib, a high-ranking U.S. State Department official, in keeping with Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s principal objective regarding the Serb’s mass slaughter of Bosniaks (or Bosnian Muslims), which was to prevent the United States from effectively acting to stop the killing instructed Marshall Harris, the State Department’s country officer for Bosnia, to conceal the Serbs’ identities and therefore their responsibility for the transgressions. Habib told Harris not to write that the Serbs were shelling a certain town but rather that “there was shelling” or “there were reports of shelling.” Harris explains that Habib “didn’t want us to be seen pointing the finger when we weren’t going to do anything.”

What Surin Pitsuwan, the  ASEAN chief, is doing now is same as what Warren Chistopher had done in the early 1990s. ASEAN does not want to interfere in the internal affairs of a fellow rogue country. So a clear pattern of ethnic cleansing  in a genocidal campaign by the Rakhine terrorists and Myanmar regime against the Rohingya people is now doubted under linguistic gymnastics. 

Shame on ASEAN leadership for not having the guts to call a spade a spade!