Winds of Change: Changing Narratives for Rohingya Community in Myanmar

 

Sadia Aktar Korobi  

 Myanmar’s longest-running civil disobedience campaign against its military, the Tatmadaw, has created something that was never seen before: a unified Myanmar in the “burning state.” Not only that, but this solidarity has also changed Myanmar’s Rohingya ethnic politics. After the coup, most parties have attempted to reconcile with the ethnic minority population, which has been living a life of indefinite banishment in Rohingya camps in Bangladesh since 2017 after being denied citizenship in Myanmar. Therefore, the question is: why are the winds of change now blowing for the Rohingya community?

Old narrative

The anti-Rohingya sentiment stems primarily from “historical grievances” experienced by the Buddhist population prior to Myanmar’s independence in 1948. During British colonization of Myanmar, Muslims who had fled due to persecution under the Bamar rule of the Konbaung Dynasty returned to Burma in the hope of regaining their ancestral lands. Along with that, there was a significant influx of Indian Muslims into Burma through British citizens for labor and civil service positions. For the Bamar-Buddhist people, this was not only oppression imposed by the British, but they also saw the Islamist expansion in Burma as a calculated strategy on the part of the Muslim community to rewrite Burma’s Buddhist history. Such Buddhist nationalism grew during the 1920s and 1940s, when anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, and anti-Hindu sentiments were on the rise, as evidenced by anti-Indian riots. The already-existing animosity became heightened during the Japanese invasion of Burma in 1942, which put the Burman community and Rohingya community on opposite sides, as Rohingyas remained loyalto their British overlords.

During Ne Win’s military reign, the lessons learned from the British era were solidified: a true Burma must be both Buddhist and Burmese in nature. His “Burmese-Buddhist way to socialism” policies, which he tried to implement by forcibly creating a Myanmar based on Burmese supremacy rather than accepting Myanmar’s diverse 135 national races, were a clear depiction of the Burmese fear of foreign invasion. Ne Win was obsessed with the idea of “taingyintha,” which means “sons of the soil” and is based on a classification of “national races” to bring Myanmar’s different ethnic groups under one umbrella. This led him to launch the “Naga Min” (“Dragon King”) military campaign against Rohingyas in 1978, which caused tens of thousands of civilians to flee to Bangladesh. The persecution continued further by means of the 1982 citizenship law that pushed Rohingyas even deeper underground, as it was clearly a political tool of repression to exclude Rohingya and the Muslim minority group from citizenship rights. By this point, the already marginalized Rohingya community faced a new foe in Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD, which shared the military’s view of them as illegal immigrants.

Finally, Myanmar’s flawed democracy in 2010 ended up sealing Myanmar’s door to the Rohingyas as inter-communal violence rose, with freedom of speech turning into hate speech against them. After that, the xenophobic 969 movements or the state-led “ethnic cleansing” of 2017 was just one tragedy piling onto another, with no hope anywhere for the community.

Winds of change

The whole of Myanmar now faces Tatmadaw’s aggression, and Bamars, usually on the privileged side, have finally realized that everyone in Myanmar has the same grievance: Tatmadaw’s authoritarian regime. There has been an outpouring of support for ethnic minorities among protesters of the regime, particularly among the younger generation, who believe that a lasting peace in Myanmar can only be achieved if it includes all of Myanmar’s citizens, regardless of class, ethnicity, or religious affiliation. This shift in empathy has also altered long-held perceptions of the Rohingya.

The National Unity Government (NUG) (representing the underground NLD government in the resistance) has already publicly apologized for the Rohingya community’s sufferings during the 2017 military-led ethnic cleansing. Five months after the coup, on Jun. 3, 2021, NUG released a historic paper addressing the Rohingya community, arguing that they should be recognized as a legitimate ethnic group in Myanmar and added to the list of “national races” (taingyintha). It was as historic as it could get, as neither the military nor the democratic government had even referred to the community as Rohingya in the political arena prior to the coup because the term implied they were connected to Myanmar, but here, NUG took a step that undoubtedly eased the generational curse of statelessness that had befallen the Rohingya people for generations. Along with the proposition, NUG also promised to cooperate with the Court in the ICJ case of Rohingya genocide. This represents a 180-degree shift from the NLD’s position on the case, as the NUG not only recognizes the genocide but also rejects its “symbolic” state counselor, Aung San Suu Kyi’s, statement in 2019 in which she stood in court to defend the Junta’s actions. This declaration was celebrated by the youth on social media and in the streets by flash mobs, as they now want to believe in a Myanmar that is free from the discriminatory laws and policies of the military and is recognized in the world as a Myanmar that is equal for all.

The realist perception would be that this is NUG’s strategy to win international approval and political legitimacy. However, if NUG is given the legitimacy to fulfill its promises, it will be interesting to see how it handles the repatriation issues in the future while balancing the past NLD and current NUG policies. Perhaps this is where Myanmar’s radical political transformation finds its true essence. Whatever approach it takes, the Rohingya crisis is undoubtedly a problem for tomorrow for NUG and its allies, as they are currently trying to survive the junta’s onslaught every minute.

Photo by DFID – UK Department for International Development,via Wikimedia Commons]

*Sadia Aktar Korobi is a master’s student of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.

The Rohingya face the final insult by DR. AZEEM IBRAHIM

 

Rohingya refugees continue to live in a painful limbo. About 750,000 of them are living abroad in squalor. Cast out of Myanmar, their home, they are trapped elsewhere in humiliating solitude.

Most of them live in refugee camps in Bangladesh, a country that is eager to be rid of them, come what may.

Myanmar itself is in a state of brutal civil war. The military junta that seized power in 2021 in a coup is now engaged in a vicious, and by no means successful, war of all-against-all. So isolated is the country, and so brutal the conflict, press reports are hard to obtain or verify.

However, Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh know one thing: They would be at great risk if they returned to a Myanmar dominated by the same military that committed acts of genocide against them before 2017, when their villages were razed and they were expelled en masse from the country.

But danger lurks in Bangladesh, too, where the refugee camps are scenes of intense violence and cruelty. Refugees are forbidden from working, at least legally, and so for years they have felt the effects of grinding poverty.

That poverty means the Rohingya are dependent on charity and goodwill for food. Much of that food has come from the World Food Programme, a UN agency that for years has been supplementing their meager diet. But now, as global food prices continue to spike as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Rohingya are facing the prospect of less food aid reaching them through official channels.

The WFP has described the challenge in stark terms, warning that it is approaching the precipice of a massive funding shortfall. At a time of rising food prices, it said, the dollar amount of aid it can provide is already being reduced and further cuts are likely.

Al Jazeera reports that the monthly food allowance provided by the WFP to the Rohingya in Bangladesh will be cut by 17 percent to only $10 per person at the beginning of March. Just think of that: Just $10 with which to feed yourself for a month.

That is not all. The WFP has also warned that further cuts will soon be unavoidable unless additional funding is received by April.

The Rohingya will remain in limbo, whether or not some philanthropists ensure they are fed. The only way to resolve their fate positively is to pursue the justice they so desperately need. 

Dr. Azeem Ibrahim

This is a very bitter pill for the Rohingya. They have lost everything. They have been thrown from their homes with no hope of returning to a country at war with itself. Their isolation has dragged on for more than half a decade. Now they are at risk of starvation.

UN officials have noted that malnutrition is not unknown within the refugee camps. The weakest are already under great strain as they are less able to ensure they get their rations. Criminal elements that exist within the camps, and the Bengali territory around them, disrupt the delivery of essentials.

Even before the latest cuts are implemented, up to a third of children in the camps are categorized as “stunted” in terms of growth and “underweight,” according to UN officials.

The situation can only get worse.

“The repercussions of these cuts will be immediate and long-lasting, as refugees remain almost entirely dependent on this assistance for their nutritional needs,” Michael Fakhri, the UN’s special rapporteur on food insecurity, and Tom Andrews, special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, said in a joint statement last week.

This is an understatement. If the cuts go through, it could prove to be the final insult to a population that is hardly ready to absorb additional shocks.

The camps are rife with iniquities. Children are forced to work or into marriage because their parents cannot legally find jobs and earn money. It is an awful situation for so many to be in — and it is likely to become much worse very soon.

This can all be turned around, however, just as the shortfall can be averted. An increase in funding for the WFP, which is provided both by nation states and private individuals and foundations, could prevent the axe from falling. If even a few donors made this their priority, they could save many people from destitution, illness and death.

But the larger issues still need to be addressed. The Rohingya will remain in limbo, whether or not some philanthropists ensure they are fed. The only way to resolve their fate positively is to pursue the justice they so desperately need: Justice in which the military junta in Myanmar is held liable for its campaign of genocide and punished, so as to allow the Rohingya to return to a Myanmar that is finally at peace.

• Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is director of special initiatives at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, DC, and the author of “The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Genocide” (Hurst, 2017). Twitter: @AzeemIbrahim

How the world—including the West—helps to sustain the Myanmar military’s violence

Sai Latt 

I am often asked by foreign friends what the international community can do to help Myanmar. I know that most ask with the best of intentions, but I still find the question a little troubling. To my mind, it reveals that most are unaware of the fact that the problem is not so much a lack of “help” from their countries, but the actual involvement of those countries in reinforcing the institutional and economic power of Myanmar’s military.

Both the West and Myanmar’s Asian neighbours have promised to support the democratic aspirations of its people and punish the military for its violence (although the latter camp has always gone to greater lengths to avoid upsetting the generals). In practical terms, however, neither of these two groups of nations has been very effective in living up to their promises. And the United Nations, for its part, has been even less helpful. It has already begun normalising its relationship with the junta that seized power two years ago by engaging with the generals through its Myanmar country teams and regional offices, all in the name of providing humanitarian support and civilian protection.

There are some seasoned observers who recognise that Myanmar’s perpetual political crisis is structural in nature, and not something that can be solved with promises of aid and other forms of support. However, even they miss the point when they frame the problem as one of failed nation-building. What they typically leave out of their assessment of the country’s condition is something that pervades its deeply corrupt political structures, and at the same time extends far beyond its borders—namely, capitalism.

To borrow a term from political scientists Paul Chambers and Napisa Waitoolkiat, Myanmar’s generals can best be understood as “khaki capitalist” elites who have monopolized the country’s economy and accumulated both enormous private wealth and institutional power. However, as capitalism is an international system, they would not have been able to do this without the collusion of the outside world.

As a source of cheap labour, land, and natural resources essential to the global supply chain, Myanmar is immensely attractive to international investors. But to access these resources, foreign corporations need the cooperation of Myanmar’s highly centralised—and military-controlled—state. 

To justify this control, and to extend it into resource-rich territories, the military routinely deploys the language of nation-building, declaring itself to be the defender of the nation’s borders and sovereignty. If locals resist, they are designated as insurgents who must be crushed. But the military doesn’t just target political forces or armed groups; it also aims to suppress existing forms of local governance, established economic arrangements, and long-standing socio-cultural rights.

This process is not limited to outright armed conflict. As part of its counterinsurgency operations, the military will also try to “win the hearts and minds” of affected civilians by building roads, bridges and other infrastructure, ostensibly to improve their lives. But such “development” also serves another purpose: to facilitate the transfer of local wealth out of the region and into the hands of high-ranking military officials, their families and cronies, and their international partners.

The military’s approach to nation-building also serves global capitalism in other ways. By displacing a significant segment of the local population, it frees up land for investment. And those forced off that land often end up in foreign countries as low-paid migrant labour. Thailand alone has millions of Myanmar citizens in its workforce. Even those who are well-educated but not necessarily well-connected must also seek employment abroad, working in Singapore as engineers or IT technicians.

A protester holds a placard showing pictures of four democracy activists executed by Myanmar regime during a protest on the day of the anniversary of the '8888 Uprising' in front of the Myanmar embassy in Berlin, Germany on August 8, 2022 (EPA)

Pseudo-democratic delusions

The beneficiaries of this system are those who own, invest, manage and protect the capital that it generates—that is, the transnational class of politicians, bureaucrats, security agents, investors, financiers, managers and so on who collectively run the system at the national, regional, and global level.

Looking at the international community’s role in Myanmar from the perspective of this transnational class, there is no real divide between East and West. Indeed, to use a Burmese idiom, they are like cork and bottle—two parts of the same whole. While the Western democracies are supposedly more inclined to support Myanmar’s democratic forces than its neighbours, who are seen as leaning more towards the generals, both sides are in practice working hand in hand with the khaki capitalists inside the country. 

This does not mean that Western governments and corporations have any moral sympathy for Myanmar’s military, which they often, and rightly, condemn as utterly ruthless and brutal. But at the same time, they do see the advantage of dealing with an institution that can act violently in the service of the global capitalist class. The fact that Myanmar has always received the bare minimum from the West to help it achieve genuine democracy is perhaps a reflection of this reality.

This was especially evident during the decade-long period of pseudo-democratic rule under the administrations of President Thein Sein and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi. Activists urged foreign governments and international investors not to do business with the military, noting that it had shown no signs of ending its repressive ways. But such calls went unheeded, or were even dismissed as misguided and irrational.

And so billions flowed into the country, much of it straight into the coffers of military-owned conglomerates. The families and associates of top generals also made out like bandits, further entrenching their status as Myanmar’s ruling elite. But investors had no qualms about this, as they knowingly propped up the heirs of ill-gotten fortunes and ensured their continued domination of the country’s economy.

At the same time, arms suppliers—not just from China, Russia and India, but also from Ukraine, Germany, France, Israel, the Netherlands, and South Korea, among others—wasted no time signing contracts with a military that had for decades shown no compunction about using its might against unarmed civilians.

Japan and the EU also took part in this pretence of treating Myanmar’s military as if it were something other than a killing machine wholly under the control of the country’s khaki capitalists by providing it with “capacity-building” training. This same military also received invitations to regional security cooperation forums and joint military exercises, even as it ramped up its genocidal campaigns against the Rohingya and other minorities.

Meanwhile, civil society organizations working on human rights, accountability and transitional justice issues were increasingly sidelined, as donors reduced or suspended their support for groups engaged in such “controversial” activities. What some appeared to fear was that such support could jeopardize their relations with the military, which was naively (or perhaps cynically)    portrayed as an institution susceptible to reform.

Time for a post-coup pivot?

The coup and its aftermath have, of course, made it difficult to maintain these self-serving illusions. But now that two years have passed, UN teams and Western diplomats have begun to rebuild relations with the military—not, they say, to lend legitimacy to the coup regime, but to coordinate humanitarian aid.

The international community has clearly made a calculation that the military-backed party will win elections expected to be staged later this year. In fact, the military plans to be the perennial winner from now on. This means that it only makes sense to normalise relations sooner rather than later. It also explains why cross-border aid and more tangible support for democratic actors in Myanmar have not been forthcoming.

Seen in this light, sanctions imposed on the regime by the United States and its allies, such as those included in the so-called BURMA Act (actually just a series of amendments to the latest iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act), aim not so much to punish the military as to set parameters within which it can operate in the service of transnational capital.

The point is that Myanmar remains under a dictatorship not just because of the failure of domestic forces to remove it from power, but because of international forces that continue to reinforce its grip. The role of the international community has been to keep Myanmar’s military elites confident, their economic power strong, and their machine of mass brutality fierce.

For this reason, it is not so much a question of what other countries can do to assist Myanmar’s democratic forces as what they can do to stop helping the military stay in power.

Historically, most groups resisting the military’s hegemony, including both the Bamar political opposition and ethnic organisations, have looked more to the West than to Myanmar’s neighbours for support. In some ways, this has been a strategic mistake. It has allowed other governments in the region to regard the regime’s opponents as Western proxies, even as they do very little themselves to assist efforts to establish a less immiserating political order in Myanmar.

It goes without saying that no country will help Myanmar purely out of sympathy and benevolence. All act in accordance with their elite interests and regional and global ambitions. It therefore follows that the countries with the strongest economic and security interests in Myanmar will have the greatest influence on its political evolution. And so it is critical for Myanmar’s opposition forces to build relations with these countries, including China, India and Thailand.

This means formulating diplomatic strategies that reflect other countries’ domestic and foreign policy concerns in the global context, as well as the inner workings of their elite circles and bureaucracies, and not expecting wholesale support for democracy. What it doesn’t mean is leaving the Western orbit altogether. Indeed, since East and West are inextricably bound up in the same capitalist system, this is arguably not even possible. 

However, if Myanmar’s federal and democratic forces are to succeed in breaking the military’s hold on power, they will have to rely less on the rhetoric of shared political values and more on our ability to recognise the ways that even those we consider to be our friends are acting against our best interests.

Dr. Sai Latt studied International Development, Human Geography and Asian Studies at York University in Canada. He received his Ph.D from Simon Fraser University. His research includes armed conflicts, development and violence.

US Contribution to Repatriate the Rohingyas: Lessons for India and China

 

Erina Haque February 26, 2023

The Rohingyas are the most persecuted minority group in the world. Such persecution has forced Rohingyas into Bangladesh for many years, with significant spikes following violent attacks in 1978, 1992, and again in 2016. More than 700,000 were forced to flee from Myanmar following a brutal military crackdown in 2017. Around 1.2 million Rohingyas are living in camps in Cox’s Bazar and Bashan Char in Bangladesh. At this point, there are more Rohingyas in Bangladesh than in Myanmar.

 

Following the Rohingya crisis, the socio-economic and security situation of Bangladesh is worsening. This crisis is currently at a deadlock and to bring momentum, Bangladesh needs its allies to repatriate such a huge number of people. With great power, comes great responsibility but so far, powerful countries did little to help Bangladesh repatriate this large number of refugees. In this regard, the US is helping way more than any other countries, namely China and India, when it comes to discuss this humanitarian problem. If China or India showed the same endeavors as the US, this crisis would have more progress or even finished by now.  

United States helping so far

The United States has pledged massive assistance to Bangladesh in its efforts to shelter Rohingyas. Since the crisis, the United States has been the single most important country in providing funds for Rohingya refugees. Since 2017, the United States has provided more than $1.9 billion in humanitarian assistance to people in Myanmar, Bangladesh, and other parts of the region. The United States was the largest contributor to the JRP fund in 2022, accounting for 50.1 percent of total funding.

It should be noted that Washington has offered to permanently resettle for more than half a hundred Rohingyas skilled in various jobs in the United States. A list of more than half a hundred Rohingyas who have agreed to be resettled in the United States has also been recently shared with Dhaka. Out of many Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, the resettlement of 600 Rohingyas is not a big thing in terms of numbers, but it has a lot of political importance.

In December of last year, 24 of the selected 62 Rohingyas left Bangladesh for the United States as part of the US government’s resettlement program. According to the US Embassy in Dhaka, US President Biden reaffirmed the US commitment to welcoming refugees by keeping the total admissions target in the Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for 2022-23 at 125,000, with a regional allocation of 15,000 for East Asia.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, State Department Counsellor Derek Chollet, Assistant Secretary of the US Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Julieta Valls Noyes, and other top diplomats expressed the same ideology as Bangladesh that the ‘root cause of the Rohingya crisis lies in Myanmar’ and that ‘safe and dignified repatriation of Rohingyas to Myanmar’ is the only sustainable solution.

Bangladesh is deeply involved in a crisis that is completely Myanmar’s domestic problem. The US wanted Myanmar and Bangladesh to deal with the situation bilaterally instead of having multilateral intervening forums but that did not work. So now it must negotiate with Myanmar diplomatically and bilaterally. The US is taking concrete steps in favor of Bangladesh regarding the Rohingya refugees’ repatriation to Myanmar. A favorable situation should be created for the Rohingya refugees in Myanmar, where they can live without the fear of persecution.

China and India should follow USA’s footsteps

In the quest for a strategic role — India, China, and regional actors have yet to establish a concrete position, despite greater opportunities to extend their strategic presence and establish themselves as regional leaders by engaging in the Rohingya repatriation process and peace talks to end the crisis in Myanmar. Their contributions have been minimal in comparison to what the US has done so far. While the US is strongly supporting Bangladesh on the Rohingya issue, unfortunately, China and India’s geopolitical and geo-economic interests in Myanmar leave Bangladesh to manage the Rohingya crisis alone.

There is no doubt that the Rohingya crisis is a humanitarian issue. It is an issue of justice. The whole of South Asia and Southeast Asia may become volatile because of it. As a well-wisher, friend, and partner in the development process and trade, Bangladesh can expect the cooperation and support of China and India regarding the repatriation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. For regional stability and economic friendship, China and India should help and support Bangladesh and mediate in solving the crisis as soon as possible.

There seems to be no other way except repatriation, for Rohingya refugees, which has been a hanging case for the last five years. Regional countries wanted Myanmar and Bangladesh to deal with the situation bilaterally instead of having multilateral intervening forums but that did not work. To completely solve this crisis, Bangladesh needs all its allies. Also, regional countries, mainly China and India, need to be more involved. They should follow USA’s footsteps to repatriate the Rohingyas back to Myanmar. It is hoped that other neighboring countries will also help Bangladesh to get rid of this never-ending refugee problem.

[Photo by Zlatica Hoke (VOA), via Wikimedia Commons]

*Erina Haque is a freelance writer. 

One Humanity and the Earthquakes in Turkey and Syria

 Mahboob Khawaja, PhD

When the Earth is shaken to her utmost convulsion
And the Earth throws up her burdens (from within)
And man cries (distressed) what is matter with her……
(The Quran: Zilzal-Convulsion, Chapter 99:1-3)

Reflections on the Aftermath of Earthquakes and Human Survival 

The whole of mankind is vulnerable to unpredictable earthquakes and what it means to humans to face challenging survival under the most painful and catastrophic circumstances as seen across Southern Turkey and Northern Syria on February 6.  Two earthquakes of 7.8 and 7.4 magnitudes hit the vastly populated 11 regions of Turkey and neighboring Syria which was already devastated by 12 years of a raging war. Media reports speak of 5, 840 deaths and most buildings crippled in North Western Syria –Idlib and Aleppo regions. Given the ongoing war situation in Syria, survivors were helpless and had nowhere to go except to take shelter under the open sky. The tremors are part of the human culture and represent a vivid sense of unknown and massive natural forces of destruction impacting us all on this planet.  Despite scientific knowledge and advanced technology, it is difficult to predict the coming of an earthquake or to restrain its occurrence in real time.

AFAD, the Turkish Government agency reports several thousand KM areas were affected adversely in 11 provinces, with more than 41,500 deaths, 110,000 or more injuries, and 50,000 or more buildings destroyed and possibly millions displaced by the terrible events. Antakya, the famous historical hub of ancient temples and mosques was wiped out in seconds. President Erdogan’s Government, its ministers and NGOs, and international aid teams were quick to respond. They organized to offer humanitarian help to the survivors and undertake search and rescue groups in most of the affected regions. Gaziantep, Kharamanaras, and Hatay had reportedly significantly more casualties and socio-economic damages than other regions.

At times, crises facilitate opportunities for the secret web of global harmony and the need for collaborative relationships and reasoned dialogue.  The international response to tragic earthquakes and their aftermath signal the natural bonds of seamless human unanimity and solidarity to help the victims and safeguard the preservation of human dignity and life. We, the humanity, require protection and systematic safeguards against all unknown catastrophic events and their impacts. The global response to a natural disaster was spontaneous and immediate without any political complacency. It is reported that 100 or more countries offered urgent help to Turkey and sent specially trained rescue teams to conduct searches and pull victims alive out of the rubble. The focus was to help the survivors with emergency food, medicine, shelter and humanitarian care necessary in situations of extreme difficulty and psychologically tormenting pains and anguish resulting from the earthquakes. The humanitarian passion of natural bonds could well be sighted when several experienced rescue teams were finding people alive and restoring trust and confidence in being one humanity responding to a call of help urgently needed in such a natural disaster.

It demonstrated an inward feeling of mankind to create their own space of human solidarity and relationship in moments of crisis. This should go a long way for the victims of this tragedy in Turkey and Syria to realize a balancing act of faith and kindness to foresee the bonds of unity of mankind and the universal spirit of help to all impacted by the earthquakes. One wonders, if the same spirit of human solidarity could be transformed into workable possibilities of peace and harmony and to resolve so many emerging conflicts and war raging across the world – more so in Ukraine, Kashmir, Palestine-Israel and above all the clash between the leaders and the superpowers being witnessed in daily media coverage.

Survivors in Search of Hope and Future-Making

The natural bonds of humanity invite an irresistible impulse of necessity and the spirit of universal compassion to help those who have lost all possessions of life. Those accidentally displaced people or crushed by the tremors or injured by the ferrous power of the earthquakes desperately need help and moral and psychological support to regain confidence and viability of life under highly tense circumstances which cannot be described in words unless experienced by the victims. They are suffering from natural catastrophic events with enormous pains and heartbreaking injuries – yet to be defined, explained, and listened to for human compassion, understanding, and remedial treatment.  While dealing with the aftermath of the first two quakes, two more tremors of 6.8 and 5. 4 magnitudes were felt on February 20, in Hatay and Kahramanmaras regions already worst hit by the casualties. AFAD, the UNO, and the WHO estimate indicate 26 million people could have been affected by the cycle of tremors. The situation of fear and painful suffering prevails all over the regions. Turkish Government and its agencies and global NGOs have successfully managed people’s needs for shelter, food, medical care, and children’s well-being under challenging circumstances. The EU and UNO are planning international donor conferences in Brussels to raise funds for the reconstruction of necessary infrastructures across Turkey. The WHO reminds all concerned that the survivors urgently needed vital support provisions and essential basic necessities to maintain lifelines, otherwise:  “We are in real danger of seeing a secondary disaster which may cause harm to more people than the initial disaster, if we don’t move with the same intention and intensity as we are doing on the search and rescue side.”

We, the Mankind, and the Living Earth

Verily God Knows All the hidden things Of the heavens and the earth;
Verily He has full knowledge of that is in (men’s) hearts.
(The Quran: Chapter 35: 38)

The coming of earthquakes and other natural disasters are a staunch reminder of our vulnerability and forces us to rethink, change, and be accountable on Earth.  We cannot combat earthquakes or stop tornadoes or cyclones but we can take certain precautionary measures to safeguard our lives and habitats. The Earth is a living entity and is meant for us – human beings. We, the People wonder who else except God created life, the Earth and the living Universe floating in space well balanced and functional since time immemorial. Who else other than God determined the Earth’s spinning at 1670 km per hour? Who else than God ordained it to orbit the sun at 107,000 km per hour?  And who else than God made it to spin at 28,437 km per hour at the equator? (The New Scientist). Be aware that the Earth’s average distance to the Sun is about 93 million miles (105 million km); the distance of the Moon from the Earth is currently 384,821 km equivalent to 0.002572 Astronomical Units and if the distance between the Earth-Sun or the Earth-moon were ever to change, there will be no sign of life or habitats left on Earth.

There are interwoven socio-economic, humanitarian, and political sensitivities involved in any crisis situation deserving immediate response and actions. Realizing the nature of the wide range epicenter of cataclysm in Turkey and Syria, many global leaders spoke of humanitarian help, peace and global unity. But they hardly comprehend the truth of its meaning. The unchallenging truth arising from the emerging disaster reinforces the need to establish an international emergency response planning center, well equipped with financial, material and human resources to act immediately to help people across the world and avert future disasters.  We the People of the globe ask the global conscientious leaders to listen to voices of reason for peace and global harmony extending help to all those suffering from conflicts and natural disasters.  At the edge of REASON, war is anti-human and anti-Nature.

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and is the author of several publications including the latest: One Humanity and the Remaking of Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution. Germany, 12/2019.

Hannity and Carlson Admit Lying to Audience (Then Try to Fire Fact-Checker) - thoughts shared by Kareem Abdul Jabbar

 My thoughts on the top--and top-ish--stories in this week's political, sports, and pop culture news.

KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR FEB 24

SAVE ▷  LISTEN

The most frightening apocalyptic show on television right now isn’t The Last of Us—it’s The Traitors, a reality game show that is a variation of the popular parlor game Mafia. Three of the group are designated traitors while the rest are called the faithful. Every night the traitors secretly eliminate one of the faithful, and the surviving faithful vote out who they think are traitors.

None of that is the least bit frightening.

What is absolutely terrifying is listening to the faithful spew their “reasoning” for whom they vote out of the game and whom they trust. They are all almost always wrong in both. Granted, there is little hard evidence to go on, yet they charge ahead with absolute confidence that they are right. And much indignation and malice at anyone who suggests they aren’t.

Mostly, the faithful target people with whom they have personality clashes, then try to justify their petty grudges using some very lame, middle-school reasoning. Despite repeatedly being wrong (I mean, REPEATEDLY), the faithful proudly brag about using their heart and guts. To them, making decisions based on heart and guts rather than reason is a good thing, despite its ineffectiveness, and they endlessly boast about it.

Whenever one of them actually uses logic to cast suspicion on an undercover traitor, the traitors manipulate everyone else to vote that person out. To see how easily people are led around by their “hearts and guts” is pretty disturbing. It brings me back to the famous line from Nick Hornby’s wonderful novel, High Fidelity: “I've been thinking with my guts since I was fourteen years old, and frankly speaking, between you and me, I have come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains.”

This microcosm of human reasoning reflects the typical way most of us think, forming opinions based on little information but lots of personal biases, then stubbornly and righteously defending those positions— even when new information contradicts it. Worse, it reveals the mob mentality of ganging up on those who disagree with us, even when they offer solid reasoning.

But the show’s illumination of flawed human decision-making doesn’t stop there. The ending of the show strips bare the mantra of all villains of reality shows with cash prizes: “I’m doing it for my family. Sniff. Sniff.” This virtue-signaling is meant to excuse every greedy backstabbing move. I’d prefer it if they just played the game to win without having to elevate themselves as noble saints in disguise. In fact, the winner of The Traitors made the same teary claim even as they unnecessarily betrayed another player in order to take their money.

Yes, it’s just a reality game show, but it is also a frightening demonstration of how people form ill-informed opinions, rationalize those opinions, and become hostile mobs to defend those dumb opinions—all the while being manipulated and betrayed by those they trust. Worst of all, no one learned from their mistakes, which made them easy to take down. Just mention “heart” and “family” and you can persuade most people of anything.

---

Media: To No One’s Surprise

Fox Stars Privately Expressed Disbelief About Election Fraud Claims. ‘Crazy Stuff.’ (The New York Times)

Sean Hannity pandering nightly. (Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images)

SUMMARY: “Newly disclosed messages and testimony from some of the biggest stars and most senior executives at Fox News revealed that they privately expressed disbelief about President Donald J. Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, even though the network continued to promote many of those lies on the air.

“The hosts Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, as well as others at the company, repeatedly insulted and mocked Trump advisers, including Sidney Powell and Rudolph W. Giuliani, in text messages with each other in the weeks after the election, according to a legal filing on Thursday by Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion is suing Fox for defamation in a case that poses considerable financial and reputational risk for the country’s most-watched cable news network.

“‘Sidney Powell is lying by the way. I caught her. It’s insane,’ Mr. Carlson wrote to Ms. Ingraham on Nov. 18, 2020.

“Ms. Ingraham responded: ‘Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy.’

“…Fox News stunned the Trump campaign on election night by becoming the first news outlet to declare Joseph R. Biden Jr. the winner of Arizona — effectively projecting that he would become the next president. Then, as Fox’s ratings fell sharply after the election and the president refused to concede, many of the network’s most popular hosts and shows began promoting outlandish claims of a far-reaching voter fraud conspiracy involving Dominion machines to deny Mr. Trump a second term.”

MY TAKE: The scariest part of this story isn’t that Fox consistently lied. Their twisting of the news into a soggy spit-wad of misinformation has been proven over and over again. What’s scary is the last paragraph of the above summary: when Fox actually reported something accurately, viewers didn’t like the truth and left, forcing a ratings crisis. Their core viewers made their wishes known: whisper sweet nothings in my ear or we’ll find another news gigolo.

The numerous quotes from Fox’s most popular personalities reveals an all-out panic and desperation at damage control. They were so frightened that when their colleague, White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, tweeted a fact check of Trump’s election lies, they wanted her gone. “Please get her fired,” Carlson told Hannity. “Seriously What the f**k? I’m actually shocked. It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.”

Fair and balanced—depending on stock prices.

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman gives an apt description of Fox News: “We all sort of knew the truth about Fox, but now there can be no doubt: Fox News is to journalism what the Mafia is to capitalism — same basic genre, but a morally corrupt perversion of the real thing.”

So, with the lack of journalistic integrity they so often have demonstrated, Fox pimped itself out again by supporting kooks and liars that undermined democracy, all so they could woo back the coveted audience that demands to be assured the unvarnished truthiness that the kids today have no respect for traditional conservative values like racism, misogyny, and insurrection. Don’t worry, Fox will service your needs—for a price.

With the junta in a weaker position, China recalibrates its approach with an eye to expanding its influence in Myanmar

 BY: Jason Tower, USIP

Since late 2022, Beijing has increasingly signaled the limits of its support for Myanmar’s junta against pro-democracy forces and protection against international efforts to hold the army accountable for its crimes. In particular, Beijing has demonstrated a reluctance when doing the junta’s bidding internationally results in significant political costs vis-à-vis its relations with Southeast Asian states or its reputation at the United Nations. As global pressure on Myanmar’s generals grows, Beijing is particularly sensitive to signals that Western support for Myanmar’s powerful Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) or People’s Defense Forces (PDFs) that are fighting the military may increase. To the extent that the Chinese government senses that such support is on the rise, it will become much more assertive in leveraging its strategic relationships with both the military and the most powerful of the EAOs, which operate on the border in the immediate orbit of China’s influence, to shape the overall trajectory of the conflict.

Rather than seeking to back the military against all odds, Beijing aims to strengthen support for both the military and the most powerful of the EAOs, thereby dramatically increasing Chinese influence in Myanmar. This approach challenges the ability of pro-democracy forces to forge powerful coalitions that might threaten the traditional status quo between the military and the EAOs, because it pushes northern EAOs to distance themselves from what is perceived by Beijing as a Western-backed pro-democracy resistance.

As the United States considers options for implementing the provisions of the recently passed Burma Act, a top priority should be support to inclusive coalitions between the EAOs and the National Unity Government (NUG), the parallel government formed by democratically elected lawmakers. Assistance under the act should carefully consider possible impacts on and prospects for such alliances.

China’s Meandering Response to the Coup

In the immediate aftermath of the February 1, 2021 military coup led by Min Aung Hlaing, China initially took a wait and see approach, seemingly not wanting to burn bridges with either the military or the National League for Democracy (NLD) party, which it had committed to partner with in implementing billions of dollars of strategic infrastructure projects as part of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor. While Chinese state media parroted the Myanmar army’s propaganda, referring to the coup as a “cabinet reshuffle,” China also sent public signals of the importance of its relationship with the NLD.

Popular concern that China actively supported the military’s crackdown on protesters in the weeks following the coup triggered a rise in anti-China sentiment. Anxiety increased in Beijing after a series of attacks on Chinese business interests culminated in threats that “China’s gas pipelines will be burned.” China responded by increasing pressure on the military, EAOs and the NUG to ensure that all would actively play a role in defending Chinese strategic economic interests in Myanmar. While all these parties responded favorably to Beijing’s request, the military’s propaganda apparatus played to fears in Beijing that pro-democracy resistance forces were directly targeting China’s strategic interests in the country. These interests include a multibillion-dollar oil and gas pipeline that represents the only source of piped natural gas to China’s southwestern provinces, and which accounts for over 10 percent of the gross domestic product of Yunnan Province.

By June 2021, Beijing’s posture had shifted significantly in favor of the junta, with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosting the junta’s top international affairs representative, Wunna Maung Lwin. The Chinese Communist Party had a final public interaction with the NLD in September of that same year. It subsequently ceased inviting the NLD to its international political party engagements. From October 2021 until July 2022, the Chinese government gradually scaled up its relations with the junta, culminating in Beijing cohosting the foreign ministers’ meeting of the Chinese-led Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) Forum in Myanmar. With Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) once again initiating new business with the junta, Chinese State Councilor Wang Yi announced to the foreign ministers of the LMC countries — Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam — that China would partner with Min Aung Hlaing’s regime to host an LMC summit before the end of 2022.

Beijing’s warming ties with Myanmar’s genocidal generals contrasted sharply with the growing calls within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to forge direct ties with the NUG, and to limit high-level interactions with Myanmar’s army. Beijing drew strong criticism from key ASEAN countries, which were concerned that China’s convening of high-level LMC meetings would undermine ASEAN unity and  hamper efforts of the body to find a solution to the crisis. Faced with the choice of either upsetting its relationship with ASEAN or disappointing the junta, in late 2022, Beijing opted for the latter. Beijing scrapped plans for an LMC summit in Myanmar, and greater tensions emerged between Min Aung Hlaing and Beijing as it became clear that the military’s poor performance on the battlefield and the unstable business environment would preclude progress on China’s coveted infrastructure connectivity projects.  

While the Chinese government had continuously pressured the seven powerful Myanmar EAOs located in northern Shan and Kachin states to negotiate with the military, these EAOs increasingly found themselves facing a weak and incompetent adversary on the battlefield, enabling them to make significant progress recovering territories lost over the two decades before the coup.

In other cases, EAOs such as the United Wa State Army (UWSA) leveraged the chaos to begin a generational change in leadership while also supporting their allies to defeat rival militias to the south of Shan state. These dynamics functioned to further weaken the military, but also served China’s interests insofar as the northern EAOs extend Chinese influence deeper into Myanmar while pushing the frontlines of the fighting further from the Chinese border. By October 2022, a desperate military began deploying its air power to attack key positions held by three of these EAOs: the Myanmar Democratic Alliance Army, the Ta’ang National Liberation Army and the Kachin Independence Army. These attacks failed from both a military and a political standpoint, as the EAOs launched successful counterattacks, giving China a clear picture of the military’s weakness while threating stability on China’s border.   

Who Is Interfering in Myanmar?

In December 2022, as tensions between China and Myanmar’s military persisted, two key international developments altered Beijing’s calculations. First was the introduction of a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution — something which Beijing has traditionally been hostile toward. Yet with global frustrations rising vis-à-vis the junta’s blatant human rights violations and growing security threats triggered by the rising influence of transnational crime groups in Myanmar, China faced a difficult decision over whether to block the resolution. For the first time since China was seated at the UNSC in 1971, it opted to water down rather than veto the resolution on Myanmar.

A second development was the U.S. passage of the Burma Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act in late December 2022. Particularly significant to the act was the incorporation of language indicating a U.S. intention to provide non-lethal support to both EAOs and PDFs. Myanmar’s junta responded to these developments by condemning the international community’s move and by renewing efforts to court favor with Beijing. This included pledging renewed political support to China on issues such as the South China Sea and Taiwan, as well as launching disinformation campaigns claiming Western-backed PDFs were increasingly perpetrating “terrorist attacks” across Myanmar.  

With the weakened junta in an increasingly deferential position, China has once again recalibrated its approach. In late December 2022, China swiftly deployed a new Asian affairs special envoy to Myanmar, Deng Xijun. While Beijing has maintained an envoy since 2013, its most recent envoy, Sun Guoxiang, had been quietly retired in the summer of 2022, with Beijing communicating to the diplomatic community that it would take time for a new appointment to be made. Several nuances around China’s deployment of this new envoy signaled a different direction: 1) no official announcements of the envoy’s appointment were made, 2) the envoy met with the powerful northern EAOs before meeting with the military, and 3) the envoy has pressured the northern EAOs to negotiate with the military and to refuse assistance from the West.

The moves of the new Chinese envoy shine a light on Beijing’s preferred approach to addressing the conflict: pushing for the military and the northern EAOs to forge an agreement that would dramatically increase the autonomy and influence of these groups across the Chinese borderlands in exchange for their support for the military’s efforts to limit the growing power and influence of PDFs and NUG-aligned EAOs, and its moves to organize a sham election. Meanwhile, the evolving position of China’s closest ally in Myanmar, the UWSA, maximizes pressure on the military to accept this deal. In mid-February 2023, at a key UWSA political meeting, the UWSA announced that they would maintain ties with both the military and the NUG, which they see as a “second Myanmar government.”

Chinese SOEs, the Yunnan Provincial Government and

 Shady Business Networks

With Beijing increasingly leveraging parallel relationships with the most powerful of Myanmar’s EAOs and the military to shape the trajectory of the conflict in its favor, three sets of Chinese actors have emerged as critical lifelines to Myanmar’s army.

First are the powerful Chinese SOEs with deep interests in Myanmar and ties to the military that could enable them to reap windfall contracts should the military succeed. The ChinaPower Company, which entered the market during an earlier period of military rule, is one of the few SOEs both implementing ongoing infrastructure projects as well as initiating new projects. These include an ongoing gas-to-energy project in Rakhine state, which has achieved milestones for completion post-coup. Emboldened by this success, ChinaPower has signed a series of new energy deals with the junta, which it has fast-tracked, bringing over 63 megawatts of new power projects online over the past six months. Chinese state media and the Chinese embassy have aggressively promotedthese efforts to present narratives in China of a “new normal,” favorable to Chinese SOEs.

Second is the Yunnan Provincial Government, the current leadership of which includes senior officials with deep personal ties to Myanmar’s army, and which is convinced that the army will never cease to be a key political player in Myanmar. Almost immediately after the coup, the Yunnan Provincial Government appointed a key intellectual backer of the China-Myanmar military relationship to lead the Yunnan Department of Commerce. Li Chenyang, who was one of the initial proponents of the China-Myanmar pipeline project, has led a series of initiatives to align the Yunnan Provincial Government behind the military with the objective of finding a way to reset Yunnan’s economy post-COVID-19. In February 2023, Li led a delegation of Yunnan Provincial Government officials and business representatives to Myanmar for the Yunnan-Myanmar Commercial Forum.

Third are the shady business networks, including China-affiliated transnational criminal organizations, which thrive in kleptocratic and highly unstable contexts like Myanmar. These include criminal syndicates involved in trafficking individuals from across the globe into scam centers, where they are forced at gunpoint to engage in fraud. Post-coup, a series of Chinese business promotion agencies sprang to life in Myanmar, including organizations such as the South Asia Future Company, the China Myanmar Economic Cooperation and Development Promotion Association and the World Peace Ribbon Association. All of these organizations seek to extract concessions or gain preferential access to projects by building close ties to the junta and key crony companies. The World Peace Ribbon Association, which has previously played a role in Beijing’s Belt and Road Forum, featured in a December 2022 business exchange with Min Aung Hlaing, during which the association announced the establishment of a new “hub” in Yangon for the promotion of China’s Belt and Road Initiative projects.         

Together, these forces all work to influence Beijing in the direction of enhancing its support to Myanmar’s army and play a key role in advancing the cause of the army in Beijing.

A Possible U.S. Response to Beijing’s Growing Influence in 

Myanmar

Beijing’s overall posture continues to prioritize a status quo that favors the military over pro-democracy forces. While so, cracks have emerged in the alliance between Beijing and the generals. In particular, China’s growing tolerance for EAOs to challenge the military’s positions on the Chinese border demonstrate one way through which Beijing aims to deepen its leverage over the regime. At the same time, Beijing’s moves risk throwing Myanmar deeper into protracted conflict. While China may think it can leverage its relations with the northern EAOs and the military to weaken pro-democracy forces and check Western influence in Myanmar, this threatens to further balkanize the country. It also represents a fundamental misreading of the Burma Act, which aims to recognize the essential role that Myanmar’s myriad EAOs and PDFs must play in order to achieve the foundation necessary for sustainable peace in the future.

As the United States considers options for implementing the Burma Act, a critical need is to enhance assistance to the formation of inclusive coalitions, which can work together to place Myanmar back on a path toward democracy.