First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply The Genocide In Myanmar: The Plight Of the Rohingyas
22925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/12/17

bixnoodnigga wrote:

Myanmar is practically worthless in terms of resources, trade routes, etc... so people won't hear about it much. However something should be done, but by regional powers like China.


I think the US, as an international power, has more than enough resources.

I also like to add that charities have been kicked out, so I suppose the only thing we can do to ease our conscience would be to contact representatives, if you guys actually care enough.

https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials

In all honesty, I was hoping to veer the partisan political course the thread section has undergone if there is anything to expect from this thread.
1332 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 2/12/17
So, why all the friction between the Buddist majority and the Muslim minority? I get that there's usually friction between different ethnic groups, the US is no stranger to that. But why has it gotten to the point of bloodshed? More specifically, I'd assume the tension would have dropped once they'd been there for a couple generations. Is it like how we are with the Mexicans and how they're seen as a source of economic woe, or something similar?

Normally, I'd suggest doing what a lot of Jews did after WWII and move somewhere more welcoming to people of their ethnicity, but for Muslims that would be... the Middle East, so I guess that wouldn't necessarily help.
22925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/12/17

Mishio1 wrote:

So, why all the friction between the Buddist majority and the Muslim minority? I get that there's usually friction between different ethnic groups, the US is no stranger to that. But why has it gotten to the point of bloodshed? More specifically, I'd assume the tension would have dropped once they'd been there for a couple generations. Is it like how we are with the Mexicans and how they're seen as a source of economic woe, or something similar?

Normally, I'd suggest doing what a lot of Jews did after WWII and move somewhere more welcoming to people of their ethnicity, but for Muslims that would be... the Middle East, so I guess that wouldn't necessarily help.


A lot of it appears to be nationalism, with a hint of classicism, with a continued devotion to denying any of them citizenship for decades. Some of this happened to be an association with the former British, who colonized the area, and their complicity in British rule, which sounds similar to the reason of Tutsi on the allege account of being a wealthy minority that benefit working with the colonial powers. There is also a past separatist movement to create their own state.

Their also appears to be religious differences, so to speak.
1164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/12/17

Mishio1 wrote:

So, why all the friction between the Buddist majority and the Muslim minority? I get that there's usually friction between different ethnic groups, the US is no stranger to that. But why has it gotten to the point of bloodshed? More specifically, I'd assume the tension would have dropped once they'd been there for a couple generations. Is it like how we are with the Mexicans and how they're seen as a source of economic woe, or something similar?


The tension between the Rohingya and the Myanmar government (especially with the local Rahkine Buddhists) can be traced back to 1826 when the Rahkine state (then known as the Arakan region) was annexed by the British during the Anglo-Burmese wars. Since the British needed cheap farm labor, and a local ethnic group they could trust to always be on their side, they began encouraging Chittagonian Bengalis to immigrate into Burma, but especially into Arakan. These Bengalis were pretty much the ancestors of most of the modern day Rohingya. Over the course of years the Rahkine Buddhists became marginalized as the British granted greater rights and privileges to the Bengalis, while the Rahkines found themselves at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. So already this ethnic-religious conflict is being set-up.

Fast forward to the Second World War, in 1942. At this point the British were retreating as the Imperial Japanese Army advanced through Burma. With the loss of authority, the Rahkines and Muslims started to go at each other. It wasn't helped at all by the British arming the Muslims as a response to Rahkine Buddhists being heavily pro-independence and joining Japanese-armed Burmese nationalist armies. However, this volunteer Muslim army (called V-Force) was reported to have used these weapons in acts of violence against the Rahkine communities, destroying their monasteries and committing atrocities. The British didn't overly care about this of course.

Now, fast forward to the end of the war and to decolonization. The Muslim and Buddhist populations in Rahkine state do not trust each other at all, and the Arakan Muslims have a good reason to fear for their future. It got to the point where a delegation tried to convince Britain to incorporate Arakan into East Pakistan (modern day Bangladesh) which failed due to the movement having no historical or demographic basis, as well as Arakan Buddhists still being the majority. At this point, the Muslims in Arakan began to form their own nationalist movement in the 1950s, and lead a violent insurgency against the Burmese government, which failed (this is also the first time we start to see the Muslims of Arakan collectively refer to themselves as the Rohingya). The new Burmese military government had a policy that only ethnic groups who can prove they resided in Burma prior to the British conquest get to have citizenship. Since there is a case to be made that most Rohingya are descended from the Bengalis who came in after the annexation, the government saw fit to render them stateless.

In summary, the Rahkine Buddists hate the Rohingya for almost displacing them in former Arakan, while the government hates them for the nationalist movements the Rohingya attempted after decolonization and therefore doesn't try protecting them from sectarian violence. All of this can be traced back to the British playing divide-and-rule colonial politics. Now the Rohinhya are screwed because Myanmar doesn't recognize them as citizens, while Bangladesh wants nothing to do with them. They're stuck in the middle and paying for the shitty decisions of past generations.
1332 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 2/12/17 , edited 2/12/17
Makes sense. I'm already somewhat familiar with the Tutsi situation, so the comparison makes it a lot easier to understand, PV. And thank you Walker for providing a more in-depth explanation. Yeah, if they were fighting each other as recently as WWII, it's unlikely they'd forget that.
19802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/12/17
And people wonder why I don't like the UN. Sure we need an international organisation but we need one with both political clout and military power that can enforce it's own mandate. The United Nations hasn't been that for a long time, especially with the useless Americans all but abandoning their international obligations as of late.

I know the current situation was a direct result of the British playing politics in Asia but the situation with Rahkine and Rohingya ain't going to solve itself. At the very least the UN could deploy another ISAF force in the region, enforce a ceasefire with the rifles of it's peacekeepers while a more palatable solution is ironed out.
14962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/12/17 , edited 2/12/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-crisis-the-horror-the-world-isnt-watching/news-story/9e81d9a71d8db5a3edea67501e37a4ff

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38168917

I am foremost, disappointed in Aung San Suu Kyi's lack of inaction
, due to the overwhelming amount of prejudice against the Rohingyas. I am also disappointed that this Buddhist majority country can even call themselves followers of Buddha.

I doubt the UN will do anything either.

Let's discuss this. I know you are all disappointed about the US election, but we have more pressing matters.


Might want to fix that up, it's driving me insane.

Also, there does seem to be a religious persecution problem going on here. I've heard of horrible acts against the Kachin ethnic group as well. (They practise Christianity and Animism). Though it seems the Rohingyas are getting hunted as "illegal aliens" while the Kachin are recognised as an official ethnic group of Burma.
57930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Online
Posted 2/12/17
Every time a regional power tries to emerge in that part of the world someone shuts them down. The last time someone almost became the regional power they had their supplies cut off and two cities nuked. Now China tried to become the Regional Power of Asia and we tried to fix them all into the US economy so they would be forever hobbled.

India is busy posturing against China and fighting in Khasmir to turn around and do anything in the opposite direction.
21363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 2/12/17 , edited 2/12/17

Ranwolf wrote:

And people wonder why I don't like the UN. Sure we need an international organisation but we need one with both political clout and military power that can enforce it's own mandate. The United Nations hasn't been that for a long time, especially with the useless Americans all but abandoning their international obligations as of late.

I know the current situation was a direct result of the British playing politics in Asia but the situation with Rahkine and Rohingya ain't going to solve itself. At the very least the UN could deploy another ISAF force in the region, enforce a ceasefire with the rifles of it's peacekeepers while a more palatable solution is ironed out.


Perhaps the "useless Americans" are sick of bankrolling everything, last time I checked we make up 3-4% of the world's population yet pay 22% of the UN's bills, not to mention the billions of dollars we spend playing world police, free of charge of course. The UN will continue to operate with its hands behind its back while it has undemocratic member states among its membership roster. The UN has an important world for international dialog, but will continue to be pretty useless when it comes to preventing genocide unless the way it operates is drastically overhauled.

Also, let's me honest, the United States as of late has a bad track record of trying to "help" those who are oppressed and ended up making things worse, Libya and Iraq are the two main ones that come to mind. Therefore, I'd prefer that a more diverse international coalition would be the ones who'd rise to the call.

The UN would be the ideal one to take that charge, but doesn't the Myanmar/Burma government have to invite a peacekeeping force into their country?

From the UN's website:
"UN peacekeeping operations are deployed with the consent of the main parties to the conflict. This requires a commitment by the parties to a political process. Their acceptance of a peacekeeping operation provides the UN with the necessary freedom of action, both political and physical, to carry out its mandated tasks.

In the absence of such consent, a peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to the conflict; and being drawn towards enforcement action, and away from its fundamental role of keeping the peace.

The fact that the main parties have given their consent to the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation does not necessarily imply or guarantee that there will also be consent at the local level, particularly if the main parties are internally divided or have weak command and control systems. Universality of consent becomes even less probable in volatile settings, characterized by the presence of armed groups not under the control of any of the parties, or by the presence of other spoilers."

Essentially they will continue to sit around table saying something ought to be done, but ultimately end up doing nothing.


camay1997 wrote:

Is there oil in Myanmar? If not don't expect the US to get involved anytime soon.


Well yeah, if big oil isn't going to make any money off of it the government won't do anything anyway. They practically own our useless Congress and dictate much of our foreign policy. Heck, a former Vice President was an Ex-CEO of one and now we have a Secretary of State who was one too, see a trend?
19802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/12/17

kevz_210 wrote:



Perhaps the "useless Americans" are sick of bankrolling everything, last time I checked we make up 3-4% of the world's population yet pay 22% of the UN's bills, not to mention the billions of dollars we spend playing world police, free of charge of course. The UN will continue to operate with its hands behind its back while it has undemocratic member states among its membership roster. The UN has an important world for international dialog, but will continue to be pretty useless when it comes to preventing genocide unless the way it operates is drastically overhauled.

Also, let's me honest, the United States as of late has a bad track record of trying to "help" those who are oppressed and ended up making things worse, Libya and Iraq are the two main ones that come to mind. Therefore, I'd prefer that a more diverse international coalition would be the ones who'd rise to the call.

The UN would be the ideal one to take that charge, but doesn't the Myanmar/Burma government have to invite a peacekeeping force into their country?

From the UN's website:
"UN peacekeeping operations are deployed with the consent of the main parties to the conflict. This requires a commitment by the parties to a political process. Their acceptance of a peacekeeping operation provides the UN with the necessary freedom of action, both political and physical, to carry out its mandated tasks.

In the absence of such consent, a peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to the conflict; and being drawn towards enforcement action, and away from its fundamental role of keeping the peace.

The fact that the main parties have given their consent to the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation does not necessarily imply or guarantee that there will also be consent at the local level, particularly if the main parties are internally divided or have weak command and control systems. Universality of consent becomes even less probable in volatile settings, characterized by the presence of armed groups not under the control of any of the parties, or by the presence of other spoilers."

Essentially they will continue to sit around table saying something ought to be done, but ultimately end up doing nothing.


The USA made indeed make up a tiny fraction of the world's population but last time I checked a vast majority of the world's wealth is in American hands. On the whole the the USA has far more liquid capital to throw around then it's next three competitors put together. This is even despite the staggering debt it is suffering under. At the same time I willingly admit the UN is well lacklustre to say the least, we are at least in agreement there.

And the Americans help in Libya and Iraq didn't make things worse, their unwillingness to stay the course for the long run is what made things worse. Situations such as those in Libya and Iraq don't resolve themselves overnight. And let's be honest of all the nations that make up the membership of the UN America is the one most capable of fielding large amount of not only troops and other forces but the logistical support necessary to keep them in the field for long. And from what I've seen of them in Afghanistan I will admit a UN ISAF force without American backing is going to be lacking major firepower.

As for consent that didn't stop the UN from deploying a ISAF in Afghanistan, we were a party to a conflict and yet we didn't mind the switch from peacekeeping to active conflict. The same sort of mentality is needed in this Myanmar/Burma situation as well. I'll be the first to admit this probably won't end pretty but when is doing what is necessary ever has?

I mean not so long ago we deployed millions of troops, planes, tanks, ships, and uncounted supplies to a conflict that was decidedly European in nature . I don't know about you about but this whole Myanmar/Burma situation sits ill with me. It's a real problem needing real action yet we're going to sit here arguing over who should take point and meaningless rhetoric.

I guess I shouldn't say so much being a citizen of a country that has at best been reluctant to commit troops to even legal UN actions let alone the likely somewhat non kosher actions that will be needed to solve this. But as a soldier I hate sitting idly by while people are dying, it's not how the CAF handled Afghanistan.

22925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/13/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-crisis-the-horror-the-world-isnt-watching/news-story/9e81d9a71d8db5a3edea67501e37a4ff

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38168917

I am foremost, disappointed in Aung San Suu Kyi's lack of inaction
, due to the overwhelming amount of prejudice against the Rohingyas. I am also disappointed that this Buddhist majority country can even call themselves followers of Buddha.

I doubt the UN will do anything either.

Let's discuss this. I know you are all disappointed about the US election, but we have more pressing matters.


Might want to fix that up, it's driving me insane.

Also, there does seem to be a religious persecution problem going on here. I've heard of horrible acts against the Kachin ethnic group as well. (They practise Christianity and Animism). Though it seems the Rohingyas are getting hunted as "illegal aliens" while the Kachin are recognised as an official ethnic group of Burma.


I meant to add for and foremost, sorry bout that.
11380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/13/17 , edited 2/13/17

Ranwolf wrote:

I guess I shouldn't say so much being a citizen of a country that has at best been reluctant to commit troops to even legal UN actions let alone the likely somewhat non kosher actions that will be needed to solve this. But as a soldier I hate sitting idly by while people are dying, it's not how the CAF handled Afghanistan.



I suppose if we want to do something we can try getting in touch with our elected officials and try to get them to do something about it, but then again I'm not even sure who we should be talking to or what we should tell/ask them. There's always Change.org petitions, but those don't have much of a track record of getting things done.
Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 2/13/17

karatecowboy wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Let's discuss this. I know you are all delighted about the US election, but we have more pressing matters.


FTFY

I have not heard of this genocide. I have more concerned with the genocide of Christians in the Middle East, caused by the power vacuum when former President Urkel withdrew our troops, against the advice of all military experts and basic rational thought. Christians are the most persecuted people, worldwide, and the ME genocide is a far more pressing matter. That said, people under genocide everywhere have my sympathy.


So if they aren't Christians their lives don't matter? My how very Christian of you but hardly surprising
22925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/13/17

uncletim wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Let's discuss this. I know you are all delighted about the US election, but we have more pressing matters.


FTFY

I have not heard of this genocide. I have more concerned with the genocide of Christians in the Middle East, caused by the power vacuum when former President Urkel withdrew our troops, against the advice of all military experts and basic rational thought. Christians are the most persecuted people, worldwide, and the ME genocide is a far more pressing matter. That said, people under genocide everywhere have my sympathy.


So if they aren't Christians their lives don't matter? My how very Christian of you but hardly surprising


Let's not. I'd hate to infer that he cares more about them because they Christians. It may be because they are dying in larger numbers.
19802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/13/17

octorockandroll wrote:



I suppose if we want to do something we can try getting in touch with our elected officials and try to get them to do something about it, but then again I'm not even sure who we should be talking to or what we should tell/ask them. There's always Change.org petitions, but those don't have much of a track record of getting things done.


The PM's office or perhaps your locally elected MP. But the Liberal party has historically been the one to hold back the CAF from active deployment. Though as a soldier there is only so much I can say, a squeaky wheel may get the oil but a complaining soldier standing before Parliament gets a court martial.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.