Inconvenience (and the genocide of the Rohingya)

If I was to be "socially nice" for a moment, I would say that a number of nations find honouring human rights, both within their nations and without, to be at times "inconvenient".

Pleasant, bland, inoffensive - and a lie.

The truth is that those who find that acceptable are either cowards, unethical/unthinking monsters, or both.

I've been re-reading Samantha  Power's "A Problem from Hell" (Amazon), and the denial and downplaying of the Holocaust during WW2 was appalling - the attempts, limited in success and opposed by the US Government as they were, of US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire  Henry Morgenthau Sr. make the US response to the Armenian Genocide - well, not good, but less bad.

Ms Power wrote that masterful book in response to her witnessing of the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, events that were denied by iron hearted and/or duped IPOCs like this specialist in false equivalence and conspiracy fantasies.

I like the structure adopted in Ms Power's book, and I am actually studying her book, just as I used to study text books at Uni. I've decided to have a go at applying it to the currently continuing genocide by burma (that nation is not yet a democracy, and thus I refuse to use "Myanmar") against the Rohingya.

Genocide	Warning	Recognition	Response	Aftermath
Rohingya	The burmese Empire was one of, if not the, most aggressive and expansionary in that part of the world (until the British Empire arrived in the early-mid 1800s). Their violent acquisitions set the scene for the current swathe of unrest in border regions and minorities in burma. One of those areas was the land now known as Arakan or Rakhine, whose people were mostly driven out by the burmese using the sorts of techniques we saw a few years ago (and still continuing) - twice, in 1406, and 1785 (see also here). Thus, when burma claims that the Rohingya came from Bengali, they are “conveniently” ignoring the inconvenient truth that those people were only in Bengali because of burmese actions. The Rohingya, equally part of burma at independence, have increasingly been denied human rights since the 1962 coup - and even more so since 1982. They have “faced military crackdowns in 1978, 1991–1992, 2012, 2015, 2016–2017 and particularly in 2017–2018, when most of the Rohingya population of Myanmar was driven out of the country, into neighbouring Bangladesh”. More generally, burma has a long history of human rights abuses, which are still continuing. Concerns existed that the gentle approach burma was being given would encourage abusers. To use an old police term, burma “has (past) form”.	The word “genocide” was developed largely in response to the Armenian Genocide; the Genocide Convention was written and passed into international law in response to the Holocaust; the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle was codified (it already existed) in response to inaction in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Just as burma “has form” on abuse, so too does the world “have form” on ignoring abuse. Recognition that “something” was happening was present in early (2017, maybe also 2016) media reports, but they were too clinical, in my opinion, to get across the reality that another violent genocide was underway. Briefings by NGOs got the point across more clearly. Investigations by the UN’s OCHCR in 2017  confirmed that a major atrocity was underway, and officials were alluding to genocide (the term “acts of genocide” is a weasel phrase) in 2018. The ICC in 2018 considered this to be a genocide, and sought permission to investigate. My opinion is that a genocide should have been declared in late 2017, certainly no later than 2018.	Prior to the genocide, the focus of the world has largely been on getting rid of the repressive  military junta, and hopefully getting some democracy or at least decent people in their stead. The reforms of 2011-12 reduced the military to 25% of the seats, but their influence over key selection processes means they have far more influence, and the nation remains  repressed. (The World Bank data below shows that, generally speaking, burma is dreadful with regard to governance, but it has been slightly less dreadful of late.) Prior to the “reforms” in 2011-12, the world (except for China) had agreed to treat burma like any other apartheid state: as a pariah. My sense is that, over the last couple of decades, as a whole, the world (except for the Union of Soviet Socialist Russia, under Grand Tsar Putin) has been too focused on how to avoid taking action in Syria to also give attention to how to avoid taking action on the building crises in burma. More specifically, those few, undoubtedly overworked and under-resourced, people in governments who have been tasked with burma have probably hoped that “reform” might lead to Reform - and that was all they had time, energy or resources to do. The nations of the world condemned the genocide - or, at the very least, the “atrocities”), send aid to help Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations on earth, cope with the nearly one million refugees, called for investigations, and imposed (more) sanctions. (Sanctions still apply - for example, see here.) This all seemed a little too glib, to me, and the inaction of the UN Security Council over fears of a veto by China was truly appalling, but then in November, 2019, The Gambia filed a legal case against burma; and in January, 2020, the International Court of Justice found a genocide was happening, and made a preliminary order to burma to prevent it. (See here for an assessment of burma’s largely non-existent response.) The legal case against burma is continuing, and Canada and the Netherlands have joined The Gambia, which has been seeking to improve its internal human rights situation - and certainly running this case would help all in The Gambia to be focused on human rights.	The genocide is still continuing. It is too early to consider returns to burma, let alone an “aftermath”. What is facing the nations and people of the world right now, in this still continuing response phase, is: what are you going to do to: (i)                   help the victims of the genocide, especially those who have fled to Bangladesh (which is a reference to Bangladesh’s needs), but also those still in burma; (ii)                 help hold burma to account and address the problems in the short (stop the abuses), medium (return their land to the Rohingya, provide compensation, etc), and long (dealing with bigotry and establishing a genuine [functional and inclusive] democracy) terms? (Incidentally, there are some magnificent initiatives being taken by the Rohingya themselves. [I’ve had the benefit of talking to some people who have worked at providing aid in Cox’s Bazaar, but there is also some excellent media coverage by Thomson Reuters and others.]Every single one of these people, including every single death or victim of abuse, is a human being. Never forget it.) I’ve written to our Foreign Minister a few times, and have seen aid to Bangladesh increase (no doubt in response to many examples of activism, not to mention the inherent decency of those involved in government). I’m using my writing skills in a few other ways (I even tried to write to the ICC in 2017 arguing they get involved, but got such a nonsensical response back I haven’t bothered with them ever since), and am doing a few other matters - and that’s before we get to social media. I have also written to my local MP and others to try to find out what military aid Australia is giving burma, and why, but have had no response whatsoever. That’s a concern, as it is governmental levels that will largely drive an effective response - including holding burma to account in the (deeply, deeply flawed) Human Rights Council, but also making sure responses to the current and any further orders from the ICJ are obeyed. The world is facing a test of decency: so far, The Gambia has passed well, and Canada and the Netherlands have also received conceded passes. Where do other nations want to be, and are they genuine about any professions of wanting to be decent. If yes, this is an area where actions alone will speak. Those actions include helping Bangladesh to continue to rise to the occasion.  Final point: there may need to be an update of the definition of refugee - allowing an economy inside Cox's Bazaar is probably one of the best ways to help the situation.

From http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Reports, burma’s governance is rated as follows over the last quarter century or so: 

You'll notice it's not getting better . . .

Now, let's consider the topic of "inconveniences" during the following phases:

Warning:

• when burma claims that the Rohingya came from Bengali, they are “conveniently” ignoring the inconvenient truth that those people were only in Bengali because of prior burmese actions that are very similar to what has happened recently and is now happening; 
• when the nations of the world looked away to focus on events elsewhere, they "conveniently" overlooking the fact that suffering of this type will eventually affect others - just look at Syria and World War Two, for a couple of quick examples.

Recognition:

• nations may consider it inconvenient to recognise a genocide as it would require them to commit resources (and such responses do NOT have to be military: anyone claiming that is lying - or incompetent). This has been shown up by the actual responses led by The Gambia. On top of that, nations which are arguing against or dissembling on recognition are undermining themselves by shooting their ethics foot right off; 
• the UN and other organisations also have the capacity to take action that is out of the ordinary - i.e., extra-ordinary. Changing the definition of refugee to allow education and an economy would be one; genuinely holding burma to account in the HRC is another.

Response:

• some nations, groups or persons may consider it inconvenient to respond to this genocide out of a wrong notion that it could set back democracy in burma:
  (1) the current situation is a what I term a 49% democracy, as the army retains ultimate power;
  (2) it is questionable whether any society claiming to be a democracy that cannot handle truth is, in fact, a democracy - and this applies to many nations which are repressing dissent or struggling with the truth;
  so that notion is rubbish; 
• putting responsibility onto others who are ostensibly better able to help is "conveniently" ignoring the moral responsibility that all bear.

Aftermath:

• We haven't got there yet, so things like trying to force a return of Rohingya is basically a case of refoulement - no matter how convenient that might be a nation's overstretched economy; 
• Arguing that this should be put off until later is begging for "later" to be worse. That's not convenient ultimately - especially if that is just so you can leave your position and leave others deal with it. That's the sort of attitude that made the climate crisis so bad.

And, finally ... I hope someone with more knowledge - perhaps even a little "inside" knowledge - does a better version of this.