The so-called “right of return” is, of course, a complex and controversial topic. I was speaking more in generalities – why is it that West Asian Muslim refugees (Afghans, Pakistanis, Arabs from the Levant, etc.) are so often shuttled off to Buddhist or Christian lands, bypassing Islamic countries? The UN is impotent in all of this and wealthy Islamic states ignore the refugees.
There are a number of nations in the ME that have taken in refugees by the hundreds of thousands, but I think you know that. I suspect what you are getting at is why don’t those nations absorb the Palestinians as their own. Most Palestinians that I have met would like to return to the land they were expelled from, or at least have that option. Given that Israel accepts the descendants of Jewish refugees allegedly expelled several thousand years ago it is not unreasonable to ask that Palestinians who were born and lived there little more than 60 years ago and their descendants be afforded the same right.
The intention of this piece is hopefully to tap in to the experience of any of the New Mandala readership who has had dealings with the UNHCR in the past.
All practical responses will be very gratefully received.
Thank you very much, however I realize I do need to make myself do some more fundamental lessons first (regarding how to write), I wish you good luck for your research as well, and wish you a happy new year 🙂
Thank you very much, it is important advice indeed. I might wrote a relatively simple one for my teacher (however I think I will try to work out something that make sense). In China, Thailand seems been portrait as a ‘opposite example’ of democracy – thus become the very much ‘prove’ to support the claim that ‘democracy doesn’t work in Asia/China’ thesis. If there is a chance to illustrate a different perspective of the question, it might be able to help a little bit (though such idea is naive enough maybe).
Thank you very much and wish you a happy new year.
Wang:
From the perspective that you are in Bangkok, the stance taken by your university, what happened with teachers and class assignments in the previous crisis, I will view the fact that your lecturer suggested this very ‘interesting’ topic with great street-wise-ness (if there is such a word).
Thus, as a foreign student, I will stay safe and relegate potential LM articles to strictly personal intetest only.
Its only a 4000 word undergrad essay. Just look back at your course, pick 2 or 3 of the theories that was taught in that course- in particular the ones favored by the lecturer, and plan your assignment around that. Show that you understood what was taught by correctly applying it to current situation. That will be useful enough. I would say stick to reputable papers such as NYT or Economist etc, for current events depiction.
Be careful, be safe, and happy christmas and new year.
Dear Mrs Yingluck,
In my book, How to lie and obfuscate (a guide for politicians), I include the following principle for undermining popular leaders (of the Suthep ilk):
Principle (7b): oblige the opponent to supply details.
As I explain, everyone can agree with “we don’t want corruption!,” or “We want true democracy.” And it’s because Suthep continues to cite such mantras that he goes unchallenged.
What you have to do is ask “Dear Mr. Suthep, what exactly are the constitutional changes you would like to see?”
That’s all! Get him to spew out a few details and then stand back and enjoy the show. The more details you can extract the better, of course.
I cannot answer your specific questions, but if you are interested in more reading I recently stumbled across this paper which seems to have at least background relevance to the current political crisis: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/21997
[…] and practice of Islam, it is UMNO’s grassroots who have been enthusiastically imbibing Islamist conservatism to the detriment of harmonious ethno-religious […]
Dear Wang,
First, I don not see coherent framework from Apivat you could draw on since Apivat just cites common theoretical perspectives and adds his own interpretations. Jake Emmot explained why Apivats approach is rather questionable by standards of political science professionals. Particularly if you are writing a course essay, you should be very careful with the level of analysis and different sets of theories, such as ‘International Relations’, ‘Comparative Studies’, and so on. Before you read the suggested articles from Apivat, I would strongly advise you to read down to earth handbooks on political science which introduce you to issues of finding a perspective to write from, steps in creating an argument e.g. David Silverman with his handbook ‘doing qualitative research’ might work for this.
[…] State and elsewhere across Myanmar have been the victims of violent attacks and arson campaigns.[1] These attacks come after decades of tension during which many Muslims – often known as Rohingya […]
Yet not attributing the West’s responsibility to this factor instead only blaming the the SPDC ?
“Economic inequalities fuel resentment. Development has tended to bypass minority states in Myanmar, benefits accruing instead to businesses linked to the central government and the military. Rakhine State is one of the poorest in the country. It sees limited benefit from natural resource exploitation including billions of dollars generated from offshore gas fields. Farmers complain that they cannot transport their products to market given the poor state of the road network. Fishermen lay the blame for the massive recent decline in fish stocks on large trawlers from outside the state owned by well-connected national business interests.”
A couple of arguments made by an “ordinary Rohingya” (as opposed to ever present Tun Khin or Habib Saddiqui- the people Peter Cohen put question marks on) are relevant here. He said Rohingya more than the “True” or “Pure” Crystalline Burmese wear “Burmese” traditional clothes- Burmese are now ashamed to be seen in their own clothes to the delight of the marketers- and more importantly there has been no report even by the traditional Always Lying, Cheating, Phar-ba-sus Sit-tut and its loyal press of Rohingya conducted terrorist attack anywhere in Burma for the last half century. There has surely been mass killing from both sides in the past on record.
So while trying to rally the poor, devastated people on the ground (pawns- as opposed to goats) to have a rallying name “Rohingya” and widespread airing in international organizations and events where they have thoroughly infiltrated asking for something they are not likely to get- a peace of land to be owned and administered by them), the Rohingya Leadership- as such has been careful not to incite the wrath of the most cruel, reckless and ruthless Sit-tut by way of organised terrorism.
But by failing to curb the ever present physical threat by the Rohingya to their immediate neighbors,they cop disproportionate physical destruction and appalling, inhumane deprivation made worse every day now by their current policy and actions on the face of overwhelming physical, psychological and journalistic support to that very Sit-tut by the “international communities” singing the tunes of global commercial interests.
For your first questions here are some references you might further explore from a conflict perspective. These papers have shaped my own understanding.
Coleman, Peter (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Toward the development of a metaframework-I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol 9(1), Mar 2003, 1-37. [Also read part 2 and 3]
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
For your second question, I’d say even though it seems everything has already been written, maybe they were written from a scholarly audience. Maybe if you took a framework and adapted it for a different audience – perhaps a broader Thai audience – there would be value in that as well. Good luck.
I don’t know about “true” democracy, but I do know that “democracy” as defined by the Democrats and Yellow shirts in Thailand means – “vote for me or I will appoint myself as the Govt”
Strange definition, I know, but that’s the one they are sicking to.
Yes, but let’s face it, deep down we know that that Suthep’s got it right. How can it be right that the vote of the most foolish among us counts for as much as that of the wisest? And, let’s not forget that it is rare indeed for a a winning party to clear 50% of the popular vote. Surely, as Suthep so persuasively reminds us, a democracy can only function with a certain critical mass of voters who are educated enough to understand the issues and concerns which confront the country at large. Thailand cannot have a democracy -at least not now. First, we need to establish the conditions under which democracy can thrive and flourish.
___True democrat.
Wait a second here Mr. Cohen, you need to put these Rohingyah rebel groups into perspective before you go condemning the entire Muslim/Rohingyah population of Burma to suspected terrorist status. First of all the RSO and ARIF have been around since the early 1990s and have never had more than a few dozen members with a couple of rifles (see Lintner, 2003, “it never had more than a few dozen soldiers, mostly equipped with elderly, UK-made 9mm Sterling L2A3 sub-machine guns, bolt action .303 rifles and a few M-16 assault rifles.33 In 1998, it became the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO), maintaining its moderate stance and barely surviving in exile in Chittagong and Cox’s Bazaar.”, http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume14/Article1.htm). The were formed in the context of the 1991 ethnic cleansing and expulsion of 200,000 or so Rohingyahs from Arakan/Rakhine state. You make it seem like they are a branch/affiliate of Al Qaeda but the reality is that they are not carrying out terrorist attacks and have shown themselves to have next to no organizational capacity to do so. Bangladesh suffers a real threat from Islamic radicalism and terrorism but RSO and ARIF don’t seem to be a part of that either.
Next, the Wikileaks cable (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2002/10/02RANGOON1310.html) that you base your whole Al Qaeda discussion off of is a cable on a report from the Myanmar government’s military intelligence. It is dated September, 2002 and the regime clearly has a motive for trying to play up links between the ARNO (ARIF/RSO) and al Qeada (the report states: “The Burmese view all these [rebel] groups [KNPP, etc.] as terrorists. Their purpose in giving us this report is to make sure we are aware of the alleged contacts between ARNO and the Burmese insurgent groups on the Thai border. Presumably, they hope to bolster relations with the United States by getting credit for cooperation on the CT front.”). There has not been similar reporting since that time about links between Al Qaeda and the these groups, which again are extremely small.
So given the insignificance of the RSO and ARIF do you honestly think it’s fair to bring them up as justification for the Burmese government’s consistent policies of forced labor, forced expulsion and ethnic cleansing? Also given the small size of these organizations and their near total absence from Burma would you really think it fair to call these organizations the “political leaders and political organizations” of the Rohingyah? I think that’s not justified and it does a disservice to the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Rohingyah who have been subjected to horrific abuses for the past 20-plus years.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Interview with a Palestinian refugee in Thailand
The so-called “right of return” is, of course, a complex and controversial topic. I was speaking more in generalities – why is it that West Asian Muslim refugees (Afghans, Pakistanis, Arabs from the Levant, etc.) are so often shuttled off to Buddhist or Christian lands, bypassing Islamic countries? The UN is impotent in all of this and wealthy Islamic states ignore the refugees.
Interview with a Palestinian refugee in Thailand
There are a number of nations in the ME that have taken in refugees by the hundreds of thousands, but I think you know that. I suspect what you are getting at is why don’t those nations absorb the Palestinians as their own. Most Palestinians that I have met would like to return to the land they were expelled from, or at least have that option. Given that Israel accepts the descendants of Jewish refugees allegedly expelled several thousand years ago it is not unreasonable to ask that Palestinians who were born and lived there little more than 60 years ago and their descendants be afforded the same right.
Interview with a Palestinian refugee in Thailand
The intention of this piece is hopefully to tap in to the experience of any of the New Mandala readership who has had dealings with the UNHCR in the past.
All practical responses will be very gratefully received.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Thank you very much, however I realize I do need to make myself do some more fundamental lessons first (regarding how to write), I wish you good luck for your research as well, and wish you a happy new year 🙂
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
I am reading the book now…thanks for your advice and I will try to follow the instructions in the book!
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Thank you very much, I am reading your suggested readings now, thanks for your encouragement, it give me motivations to continue.
Wish you a happy new year!
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Thank you very much, it is important advice indeed. I might wrote a relatively simple one for my teacher (however I think I will try to work out something that make sense). In China, Thailand seems been portrait as a ‘opposite example’ of democracy – thus become the very much ‘prove’ to support the claim that ‘democracy doesn’t work in Asia/China’ thesis. If there is a chance to illustrate a different perspective of the question, it might be able to help a little bit (though such idea is naive enough maybe).
Thank you very much and wish you a happy new year.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Wang:
From the perspective that you are in Bangkok, the stance taken by your university, what happened with teachers and class assignments in the previous crisis, I will view the fact that your lecturer suggested this very ‘interesting’ topic with great street-wise-ness (if there is such a word).
Thus, as a foreign student, I will stay safe and relegate potential LM articles to strictly personal intetest only.
Its only a 4000 word undergrad essay. Just look back at your course, pick 2 or 3 of the theories that was taught in that course- in particular the ones favored by the lecturer, and plan your assignment around that. Show that you understood what was taught by correctly applying it to current situation. That will be useful enough. I would say stick to reputable papers such as NYT or Economist etc, for current events depiction.
Be careful, be safe, and happy christmas and new year.
Assembly for the Defence of Democracy
posted yesterday.
Dear Mrs Yingluck,
In my book, How to lie and obfuscate (a guide for politicians), I include the following principle for undermining popular leaders (of the Suthep ilk):
Principle (7b): oblige the opponent to supply details.
As I explain, everyone can agree with “we don’t want corruption!,” or “We want true democracy.” And it’s because Suthep continues to cite such mantras that he goes unchallenged.
What you have to do is ask “Dear Mr. Suthep, what exactly are the constitutional changes you would like to see?”
That’s all! Get him to spew out a few details and then stand back and enjoy the show. The more details you can extract the better, of course.
Sincerely,
(a secret admirer)
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Hi Wang,
I cannot answer your specific questions, but if you are interested in more reading I recently stumbled across this paper which seems to have at least background relevance to the current political crisis:
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/21997
I was also recently referred to this which also offers more background information: (warning it is a direct pdf link)
http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Vrf/pdf/483.pdf
I’m sure others can also suggest many good sources of information, but if you want something quick & easy to read, you might find this helpful:
https://theconversation.com/thailands-street-politics-turns-violent-yet-again-21020
Good luck with the project, and its wonderful to see you wanting to do something useful.
Islamist conservatism in Malaysia
[…] and practice of Islam, it is UMNO’s grassroots who have been enthusiastically imbibing Islamist conservatism to the detriment of harmonious ethno-religious […]
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Dear Wang,
First, I don not see coherent framework from Apivat you could draw on since Apivat just cites common theoretical perspectives and adds his own interpretations. Jake Emmot explained why Apivats approach is rather questionable by standards of political science professionals. Particularly if you are writing a course essay, you should be very careful with the level of analysis and different sets of theories, such as ‘International Relations’, ‘Comparative Studies’, and so on. Before you read the suggested articles from Apivat, I would strongly advise you to read down to earth handbooks on political science which introduce you to issues of finding a perspective to write from, steps in creating an argument e.g. David Silverman with his handbook ‘doing qualitative research’ might work for this.
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
[…] State and elsewhere across Myanmar have been the victims of violent attacks and arson campaigns.[1] These attacks come after decades of tension during which many Muslims – often known as Rohingya […]
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
The key factor to solving this tragedy:
Yet not attributing the West’s responsibility to this factor instead only blaming the the SPDC ?
“Economic inequalities fuel resentment. Development has tended to bypass minority states in Myanmar, benefits accruing instead to businesses linked to the central government and the military. Rakhine State is one of the poorest in the country. It sees limited benefit from natural resource exploitation including billions of dollars generated from offshore gas fields. Farmers complain that they cannot transport their products to market given the poor state of the road network. Fishermen lay the blame for the massive recent decline in fish stocks on large trawlers from outside the state owned by well-connected national business interests.”
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
A couple of arguments made by an “ordinary Rohingya” (as opposed to ever present Tun Khin or Habib Saddiqui- the people Peter Cohen put question marks on) are relevant here. He said Rohingya more than the “True” or “Pure” Crystalline Burmese wear “Burmese” traditional clothes- Burmese are now ashamed to be seen in their own clothes to the delight of the marketers- and more importantly there has been no report even by the traditional Always Lying, Cheating, Phar-ba-sus Sit-tut and its loyal press of Rohingya conducted terrorist attack anywhere in Burma for the last half century. There has surely been mass killing from both sides in the past on record.
So while trying to rally the poor, devastated people on the ground (pawns- as opposed to goats) to have a rallying name “Rohingya” and widespread airing in international organizations and events where they have thoroughly infiltrated asking for something they are not likely to get- a peace of land to be owned and administered by them), the Rohingya Leadership- as such has been careful not to incite the wrath of the most cruel, reckless and ruthless Sit-tut by way of organised terrorism.
But by failing to curb the ever present physical threat by the Rohingya to their immediate neighbors,they cop disproportionate physical destruction and appalling, inhumane deprivation made worse every day now by their current policy and actions on the face of overwhelming physical, psychological and journalistic support to that very Sit-tut by the “international communities” singing the tunes of global commercial interests.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Hi Wang,
For your first questions here are some references you might further explore from a conflict perspective. These papers have shaped my own understanding.
Coleman, Peter (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Toward the development of a metaframework-I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol 9(1), Mar 2003, 1-37. [Also read part 2 and 3]
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
For your second question, I’d say even though it seems everything has already been written, maybe they were written from a scholarly audience. Maybe if you took a framework and adapted it for a different audience – perhaps a broader Thai audience – there would be value in that as well. Good luck.
Assembly for the Defence of Democracy
I don’t know about “true” democracy, but I do know that “democracy” as defined by the Democrats and Yellow shirts in Thailand means – “vote for me or I will appoint myself as the Govt”
Strange definition, I know, but that’s the one they are sicking to.
Assembly for the Defence of Democracy
Yes, but let’s face it, deep down we know that that Suthep’s got it right. How can it be right that the vote of the most foolish among us counts for as much as that of the wisest? And, let’s not forget that it is rare indeed for a a winning party to clear 50% of the popular vote. Surely, as Suthep so persuasively reminds us, a democracy can only function with a certain critical mass of voters who are educated enough to understand the issues and concerns which confront the country at large. Thailand cannot have a democracy -at least not now. First, we need to establish the conditions under which democracy can thrive and flourish.
___True democrat.
Beyond bigotry: Unravelling ethnic violence in Rakhine
Wait a second here Mr. Cohen, you need to put these Rohingyah rebel groups into perspective before you go condemning the entire Muslim/Rohingyah population of Burma to suspected terrorist status. First of all the RSO and ARIF have been around since the early 1990s and have never had more than a few dozen members with a couple of rifles (see Lintner, 2003, “it never had more than a few dozen soldiers, mostly equipped with elderly, UK-made 9mm Sterling L2A3 sub-machine guns, bolt action .303 rifles and a few M-16 assault rifles.33 In 1998, it became the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO), maintaining its moderate stance and barely surviving in exile in Chittagong and Cox’s Bazaar.”, http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume14/Article1.htm). The were formed in the context of the 1991 ethnic cleansing and expulsion of 200,000 or so Rohingyahs from Arakan/Rakhine state. You make it seem like they are a branch/affiliate of Al Qaeda but the reality is that they are not carrying out terrorist attacks and have shown themselves to have next to no organizational capacity to do so. Bangladesh suffers a real threat from Islamic radicalism and terrorism but RSO and ARIF don’t seem to be a part of that either.
Next, the Wikileaks cable (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2002/10/02RANGOON1310.html) that you base your whole Al Qaeda discussion off of is a cable on a report from the Myanmar government’s military intelligence. It is dated September, 2002 and the regime clearly has a motive for trying to play up links between the ARNO (ARIF/RSO) and al Qeada (the report states: “The Burmese view all these [rebel] groups [KNPP, etc.] as terrorists. Their purpose in giving us this report is to make sure we are aware of the alleged contacts between ARNO and the Burmese insurgent groups on the Thai border. Presumably, they hope to bolster relations with the United States by getting credit for cooperation on the CT front.”). There has not been similar reporting since that time about links between Al Qaeda and the these groups, which again are extremely small.
So given the insignificance of the RSO and ARIF do you honestly think it’s fair to bring them up as justification for the Burmese government’s consistent policies of forced labor, forced expulsion and ethnic cleansing? Also given the small size of these organizations and their near total absence from Burma would you really think it fair to call these organizations the “political leaders and political organizations” of the Rohingyah? I think that’s not justified and it does a disservice to the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Rohingyah who have been subjected to horrific abuses for the past 20-plus years.
Condemning the assault on Nick Nostitz
Mike N.–Might you care to let us know the conclusions that *you* have drawn?