The constitution may say the President is the foremost person in the country, but the NDSC and the puppet master still sit ‘above the President’. One law for us, another law for them.
ASSK most certainly has to be the lesser of two evils for all her own dynastic ambition and authoritarian bent come what may. Besides she now faces another uphill struggle putting her own stamp on the govt, well nigh impossible unless she finally manages to ditch the ironclad constitution that entrenched military domination in the country’s life.
If Thein Sein bragged we could become like Singapore in ten years we may now have a Lee Kuan Yew at least.
Let’s hope she won’t end up like Megawati Sukarnoputri, and god forbid like Benazir Bhutto!
No, on this point I am not at all confused – we’re just saying the same thing.
I’m not saying that no labelling needs to occur, but 1) that the particular name isn’t the point and 2) the label can be constructed by victims (“we are Rohingya”) or by perpetrators (“you are Bengalis” or “you are people-whose-claim-to-Rohingya-identify-we-reject”).
For this prong of the definition of genocide, what matters is that a racial/ethnic/national group is being singled out as such.
I wanted to raise this because, again, I think it is helpful: rather than argue about whether or not “Rohingya” is the appropriate label, we should discuss the way in which this group of people, whatever the name, are being treated. This treatment and the intent behind it determines whether genocide is occurring; not whether or not we use one name or another.
Your general points about about how situations of discrimination, social and political context can led to genocide are well taken – have you every looked at the many frameworks that there are out there for examining such a process? Gregory Stanton’s is a famous one; the recent report by the International State Crime Initiative at Queen Mary Uni is based on it.
And I totally agree that not all discrimination and communal violence = genocide, and with the comment above that we should be careful about invoking highly specific terms like “genocide.”
The thing is, Yale/Fortify (and ISCI) are both being extremely careful in their legal analysis. They have defined quite clearly the answer to the #1 question I posted above (“What acts have to be occurring to trigger ‘genocide’?”), drawing on the Genocide Convention and the subsequent authoritative interpretations that have developed through eg special tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
So if we have a pretty clear understanding of #1, I’d love to hear more discussion of these questions:
2) What evidence is necessary to establish an answer to #1?
3) Alternately, what evidence is necessary to prove that genocide is not occurring?
Since part of Soe Win Han’s essay makes the argument that genocide is not occurring, I think it would be a good occasion to discuss how this could be proven. If I were to consider his arguments from the perspective of #3, I see essentially two claims that I would evaluate as the following:
1. “Abuse of Rohingya is smaller scale than claimed (No source)”
But, scale is not a measure of genocide; legally, genocide of a small group or a large group is still genocide.
2. “Military effectively responded in 2012 and protected Rohingya villages (ICG)”
I’ll let other people argue about the relative reliability of field research by the ICG vs Fortify or the ISCI, because the groups would have directly contradicting evidence about these events.
But, do the actions of one set of actors at this time disprove claims made about other actors at other times? Is it possible that some military units could have protected people in 2012 while at the same time genocide is occurring?
As an exercise, we could take the ICG statement as 100% true, and I don’t think it resolves the issue for us.
That is, this claim can be true and claims that other actors at other times have committed genocidal acts can also be true. So the ICG report would primarily suffices to prove that the particular units the ICG is referring to did not commit genocide; I sincerely hope that that is the case, but that’s a very narrow claim.
We could infer from this instance of protection by the military that it is evidence that there is no intent to destroy the group, but that’s not enough to persuade me. A) there are too many potential alternative causalities to explain the actions of those units in 2012, such as the will/intentions of individual units. B) One of the claims made by both Yale/Fortify and ISCI is that it isn’t only riots that are genocidal, but that restrictions on access to health care, employment, food, education are bring about conditions which can be expected to lead to the destruction of the group.
So based on either A) or B), evidence about the actions of certain units in 2012 is not able to disprove the full set of allegations.
It’s hard stuff to weigh, but the allegations are so serious I think it’s worthwhile. I just wish there was more comparison like this and less retreating to blanket statements (on all sides). In the above I’ve tried to look at Soe Win Han’s argument fairly and without pre-assumptions, but it doesn’t resolve my concerns. And that is really what this is – it is beyond concerning that such serious allegations have been made, and so we have a responsibility to assess them carefully. I would much rather believe that genocide is *not occurring than that it is! But the evidence has to be discussed…
Very good analityca piece that clarifies what is really happening in these countries. And show in indirect way indirectly shows the influence of social networks on all issues of daily life.
Dear ‘still confused’, you are obviously confused: Genocide cannot occur without naming or labeling, because that is part of the process: you define or name a group (often arbitrarily, and the name is not really important, but it should be catching). Only then can you go on to violate the group. The point is that you define who belongs to that group and not the group itself. However, that is just a beginning: it starts with discrimination. Whether it goes on to full-blown genocide depends very much on the political and social context. The point is: discrimination and communal violence do not necessarily lead to genocide, although that might happen eventually. But there is no inevitability about it: in the 30s there was a lot of anti-semitism and discrimination of Jews in England, but still it did not lead to genocide like it did in Germany. There have to be other intervening factors. Hope I have confused you a bit more…..
No no, the opposite. Actually, I think it would be really helpful if there was more discussion of evidence: is genocide occurring?
Point of my comment was, everyone can have that discussion without having to first settle the questions about identity claims. They are just two different topics – long conflated, but not necessarily related legally.
So if we were to try and discuss the above question (not the one about naming), what would we discuss?
1) What acts have to be occurring to trigger “genocide”?
2) What evidence is necessary to establish an answer to #1?
3) Alternately, what evidence is necessary to prove that genocide is not occurring?
Finally, as expected, “it’s my destiny to rule Burma,” said to Michael Aung-Thwin some twenty years ago, is being realized. There will undoubtedly be a number of contentions ahead concerning the famous “I’m above the President” speech. The constitution clearly says the President is the foremost person in the country, not a weak puppet.
You’re confused because you’re taking my argument against their historical claims as my argument against their claims for ‘genocide’. You seem to have your own presumed “evidence” for the matter since you say it can be “Bengali” genocide or any other name with a “genocide” attached. I have nothing to say since you have already jumped to the conclusion.
Wait I’m genuinely confused. The Yale report makes clear, at least when it comes to the legal question of defining “genocide,” that it doesn’t matter whether the “Rohingya” are recognized as such or not. If you wanted to, you could also call this a “Bengali” genocide, just as killing of Vietnamese in Cambodia was labeled a genocide.
The ironic thing about the Yale report – tho maybe getting lost in the all the shuffle – is that it is essentially saying the “Rohingya” identity is real/constructed debate is irrelevant. I mean, obviously it matters, deeply, to many people on both sides. But it can be set to the side so the rest of the discussion can proceed.
[…] Obama ditulis akademisi dari Australia National University, Dr Michael Buehler, dan dimuat di laman http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au dengan judul Waiting in The White House […]
Right you are; suppose it’s worth remembering that the Kachin, who are mostly Christian (about 90%), have not had politically inflected religious difference to contend with to the same extent as the Karen. Furthermore, considerable difference between Karen-populated areas has clearly fostered alternative political visions and notions of Union Karen over time and in response to changing and often contrasting realities. Viewed in this way, the Karen are therefore more likely to succumb to ‘divide-and-rule’, less likely to resist it and still less likely to learn anything from it. If things are being manipulated, as you say, we might fear the government as much as Karen leaders.
The political role of the KNU will be decisive in the future, especially now that it’s within the legal fold; it’s a fact all Karen parties acknowledge, all of which have been in discussion with the KNU over the future shape of the Karen political project. We can only hope that this has the potential for greater stability and cohesion; that is, if the KNU can get their own house in order.
I was at a meeting a few months ago in which a member of the KNU Central Committee was lecturing a large Karen audience, including representatives of at least four of the political parties, on the benefits and virtues of federalism. Afterwards, the guy next to me quipped, “A Federal Union of Karen!” He may well be right in which case the KNU would assume its old precarious role at the helm of a still more diverse and divided union within the country this time. Unlike the Kachin, the Karen could find themselves fighting with unfamiliar weapons on many fronts and in uncertain terrain.
[…] tulisan asli Dr Michael Buehler dalam Bahasa Inggris: Waiting in the White House lobby dan pernyataan KBRI di Washington: Keterangan Pers KBRI Washington. (BBC tidak bertangung jawab […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
After the vote
The constitution may say the President is the foremost person in the country, but the NDSC and the puppet master still sit ‘above the President’. One law for us, another law for them.
ASSK most certainly has to be the lesser of two evils for all her own dynastic ambition and authoritarian bent come what may. Besides she now faces another uphill struggle putting her own stamp on the govt, well nigh impossible unless she finally manages to ditch the ironclad constitution that entrenched military domination in the country’s life.
If Thein Sein bragged we could become like Singapore in ten years we may now have a Lee Kuan Yew at least.
Let’s hope she won’t end up like Megawati Sukarnoputri, and god forbid like Benazir Bhutto!
A statue in Naypyidaw: Exploring motifs and meanings
As I was told repeatedly in my younger days that the central star was representation of Bama Lumyo.
As for the symbolic rep it won’t be any different from the past. All Bamar all the time.
Do not have any memorial to none Bamar, except the WWII memorial in HtaukKyan.
Private: Genocide and the vote
No, on this point I am not at all confused – we’re just saying the same thing.
I’m not saying that no labelling needs to occur, but 1) that the particular name isn’t the point and 2) the label can be constructed by victims (“we are Rohingya”) or by perpetrators (“you are Bengalis” or “you are people-whose-claim-to-Rohingya-identify-we-reject”).
For this prong of the definition of genocide, what matters is that a racial/ethnic/national group is being singled out as such.
I wanted to raise this because, again, I think it is helpful: rather than argue about whether or not “Rohingya” is the appropriate label, we should discuss the way in which this group of people, whatever the name, are being treated. This treatment and the intent behind it determines whether genocide is occurring; not whether or not we use one name or another.
Your general points about about how situations of discrimination, social and political context can led to genocide are well taken – have you every looked at the many frameworks that there are out there for examining such a process? Gregory Stanton’s is a famous one; the recent report by the International State Crime Initiative at Queen Mary Uni is based on it.
And I totally agree that not all discrimination and communal violence = genocide, and with the comment above that we should be careful about invoking highly specific terms like “genocide.”
The thing is, Yale/Fortify (and ISCI) are both being extremely careful in their legal analysis. They have defined quite clearly the answer to the #1 question I posted above (“What acts have to be occurring to trigger ‘genocide’?”), drawing on the Genocide Convention and the subsequent authoritative interpretations that have developed through eg special tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
So if we have a pretty clear understanding of #1, I’d love to hear more discussion of these questions:
2) What evidence is necessary to establish an answer to #1?
3) Alternately, what evidence is necessary to prove that genocide is not occurring?
Since part of Soe Win Han’s essay makes the argument that genocide is not occurring, I think it would be a good occasion to discuss how this could be proven. If I were to consider his arguments from the perspective of #3, I see essentially two claims that I would evaluate as the following:
1. “Abuse of Rohingya is smaller scale than claimed (No source)”
But, scale is not a measure of genocide; legally, genocide of a small group or a large group is still genocide.
2. “Military effectively responded in 2012 and protected Rohingya villages (ICG)”
I’ll let other people argue about the relative reliability of field research by the ICG vs Fortify or the ISCI, because the groups would have directly contradicting evidence about these events.
But, do the actions of one set of actors at this time disprove claims made about other actors at other times? Is it possible that some military units could have protected people in 2012 while at the same time genocide is occurring?
As an exercise, we could take the ICG statement as 100% true, and I don’t think it resolves the issue for us.
That is, this claim can be true and claims that other actors at other times have committed genocidal acts can also be true. So the ICG report would primarily suffices to prove that the particular units the ICG is referring to did not commit genocide; I sincerely hope that that is the case, but that’s a very narrow claim.
We could infer from this instance of protection by the military that it is evidence that there is no intent to destroy the group, but that’s not enough to persuade me. A) there are too many potential alternative causalities to explain the actions of those units in 2012, such as the will/intentions of individual units. B) One of the claims made by both Yale/Fortify and ISCI is that it isn’t only riots that are genocidal, but that restrictions on access to health care, employment, food, education are bring about conditions which can be expected to lead to the destruction of the group.
So based on either A) or B), evidence about the actions of certain units in 2012 is not able to disprove the full set of allegations.
It’s hard stuff to weigh, but the allegations are so serious I think it’s worthwhile. I just wish there was more comparison like this and less retreating to blanket statements (on all sides). In the above I’ve tried to look at Soe Win Han’s argument fairly and without pre-assumptions, but it doesn’t resolve my concerns. And that is really what this is – it is beyond concerning that such serious allegations have been made, and so we have a responsibility to assess them carefully. I would much rather believe that genocide is *not occurring than that it is! But the evidence has to be discussed…
Fascist assemblages in Cambodia and Myanmar
Very good analityca piece that clarifies what is really happening in these countries. And show in indirect way indirectly shows the influence of social networks on all issues of daily life.
Private: Genocide and the vote
Thanks. I misunderstood. 🙂
A statue in Naypyidaw: Exploring motifs and meanings
Have they responded yet?
Private: Genocide and the vote
Dear ‘still confused’, you are obviously confused: Genocide cannot occur without naming or labeling, because that is part of the process: you define or name a group (often arbitrarily, and the name is not really important, but it should be catching). Only then can you go on to violate the group. The point is that you define who belongs to that group and not the group itself. However, that is just a beginning: it starts with discrimination. Whether it goes on to full-blown genocide depends very much on the political and social context. The point is: discrimination and communal violence do not necessarily lead to genocide, although that might happen eventually. But there is no inevitability about it: in the 30s there was a lot of anti-semitism and discrimination of Jews in England, but still it did not lead to genocide like it did in Germany. There have to be other intervening factors. Hope I have confused you a bit more…..
Private: Genocide and the vote
No no, the opposite. Actually, I think it would be really helpful if there was more discussion of evidence: is genocide occurring?
Point of my comment was, everyone can have that discussion without having to first settle the questions about identity claims. They are just two different topics – long conflated, but not necessarily related legally.
So if we were to try and discuss the above question (not the one about naming), what would we discuss?
1) What acts have to be occurring to trigger “genocide”?
2) What evidence is necessary to establish an answer to #1?
3) Alternately, what evidence is necessary to prove that genocide is not occurring?
Waiting in the White House lobby
http://csis.org/program/advisory-board-chair-southeast-asia-studies
Mr. Hashim Djojohadikuso, Chairman, Arsari Djojohadikusomo Foundation – also known as Politician from Gerindra.
Mr. Derwin Pereira, CEO, Pereira International Pte Ltd
…coincidence?
After the vote
Finally, as expected, “it’s my destiny to rule Burma,” said to Michael Aung-Thwin some twenty years ago, is being realized. There will undoubtedly be a number of contentions ahead concerning the famous “I’m above the President” speech. The constitution clearly says the President is the foremost person in the country, not a weak puppet.
Censorship and the vote
Good review of current challenges for press in Myanmar!
Private: Genocide and the vote
You’re confused because you’re taking my argument against their historical claims as my argument against their claims for ‘genocide’. You seem to have your own presumed “evidence” for the matter since you say it can be “Bengali” genocide or any other name with a “genocide” attached. I have nothing to say since you have already jumped to the conclusion.
Private: Genocide and the vote
Wait I’m genuinely confused. The Yale report makes clear, at least when it comes to the legal question of defining “genocide,” that it doesn’t matter whether the “Rohingya” are recognized as such or not. If you wanted to, you could also call this a “Bengali” genocide, just as killing of Vietnamese in Cambodia was labeled a genocide.
The ironic thing about the Yale report – tho maybe getting lost in the all the shuffle – is that it is essentially saying the “Rohingya” identity is real/constructed debate is irrelevant. I mean, obviously it matters, deeply, to many people on both sides. But it can be set to the side so the rest of the discussion can proceed.
NLD needs to lift the standard
[…] NLD needs to lift the standard (asiapacific.anu.edu.au) […]
Waiting in the White House lobby
[…] Obama ditulis akademisi dari Australia National University, Dr Michael Buehler, dan dimuat di laman http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au dengan judul Waiting in The White House […]
Malaysia’s ‘strongman’?
[…] BY BRIDGET WELSH […]
Waiting in the White House lobby
Except photoshop expert, you need also a hacker to upload that into government site fara.gov
Karen parties and the vote
Right you are; suppose it’s worth remembering that the Kachin, who are mostly Christian (about 90%), have not had politically inflected religious difference to contend with to the same extent as the Karen. Furthermore, considerable difference between Karen-populated areas has clearly fostered alternative political visions and notions of Union Karen over time and in response to changing and often contrasting realities. Viewed in this way, the Karen are therefore more likely to succumb to ‘divide-and-rule’, less likely to resist it and still less likely to learn anything from it. If things are being manipulated, as you say, we might fear the government as much as Karen leaders.
The political role of the KNU will be decisive in the future, especially now that it’s within the legal fold; it’s a fact all Karen parties acknowledge, all of which have been in discussion with the KNU over the future shape of the Karen political project. We can only hope that this has the potential for greater stability and cohesion; that is, if the KNU can get their own house in order.
I was at a meeting a few months ago in which a member of the KNU Central Committee was lecturing a large Karen audience, including representatives of at least four of the political parties, on the benefits and virtues of federalism. Afterwards, the guy next to me quipped, “A Federal Union of Karen!” He may well be right in which case the KNU would assume its old precarious role at the helm of a still more diverse and divided union within the country this time. Unlike the Kachin, the Karen could find themselves fighting with unfamiliar weapons on many fronts and in uncertain terrain.
Waiting in the White House lobby
[…] tulisan asli Dr Michael Buehler dalam Bahasa Inggris: Waiting in the White House lobby dan pernyataan KBRI di Washington: Keterangan Pers KBRI Washington. (BBC tidak bertangung jawab […]
Pattana Kitiarsa on Thai boxing
Congratulations Peter Vail for this wonderful and insightful thing you’ve shared to us. Thank you.