Is Myanmar Government of President Thein Sein using the narrative and incident of a murder of a single police officer, to widen and step up its Rohingya genocide?
Here is the historical background and the latest from the Rohingya village named Du Chi Ra Dan:
Du Chi Ra Dan is a sizable village, with 4,000 people, in Maungdaw Township, one of the two major towns (the other is Buthidaung) with the highest Rohingya concentration in all of Arakan or Rakhine State. There are adjacent Rohingya villages which are also part of the state's security grid system where movements between villages are watched and restricted by Myanmar security troops since the inception of the Nasaka in the 1990's.
(Nasaka was abolished as a public relations move on the eve of Thein Sein's visit to UK last year, but none of the repressive policies and acts by Myanmar government in Naypyidaw has changed at all. Naska was abolished because its chief Major General Thein Htay, one of Than Shwe's pets, and a member of Myanmar delegation led by then General Shwe Mann - now the house speaker and presidential aspirant - to N. Korea for weapons shopping spree, was singled out by the US Government as a dubious character involved in Myanmar's continued dealings with N. Korea).
1) when the news spread that the government security forces launched an operation to arrest all Rohingya males above 10 in the village the panic-stricken Rohingya boys and men who fit the profile ran to any direction.
2) many are assumed to have taken refuge in nearby villages, or worse still, may have permanently 'disappeared as they tried to flee. (in the context of Myanmar and as a matter of un-written policies, raping or killing Rohingya is done routinely by Rakhines as well as security forces with IMPUNITY. The situation may be a bit like the American South where a black man pulling a face or spitting in the presence of a whiteman or woman was an offense punishable with public lynching, a given).
3) as of 12:00 midnight, 23 Jan, the said village - Du Chi Ra Dan - has not a single soul left - all women and children who were left behind by their men and 10+ boys also fled for fear of massacres at the hands of the GOVERNMENT security troops.
4) the Rakhine local came along and looted everything of value, and everything that was movable - even wooden houses did not escape the loot and destruction. The Rakhine came and took even removable pieces of wood from the Rohingya houses.
5) the Rakhine local government has spread word that it is now safe and order has been restored in Du Chi Ra Dan village (Rohingya village) and asked the terror-stricken Rohingya residents from that village to return.
6) the Rakhine chief minister Hla Maung Tin, known for his complicity and collaboration with the Nazi-inspired Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP) which holds parliamentary seats in Naypyidaw in the June and October waves of pogroms in 2012, has reportedly met with a group of 40 Rohingya elders - before their public/official meeting with the UN officials, central government authorities, etc.
Hla Maung Tin gave the Rohingya the official narrative of the massacres, and openly told them that if they deviated from the official narrative they will be shot dead.
Nothern most part of Arakan or Rakhine state is historically 70% and above Rohingya pockets.
The Rohingya fear that the government (and local Rakhine) are stepping up their campaign of terror, using the murder of a single police officer.
The un-stated goal is to drive out AND kill as many Rohingya as possible from these Rohingya pockets.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the two largest Rohingya towns - Maungdaw and Buthidaung - were directly administered as a single administrative district and placed under the direct command of Western Command - instead of being administered through the racist anti-Burmese nationalist Rakhine political organizations and administration based in Sittwe or Akyab.
The district was then called May Yu. The Rohingya were loyal to the Union of Burma and keen to cooperate with the central government in Rangoon throughout successive governments, both the parliamentary government of PM U Nu and the so-called Caretaker Government headed by military officers under General Ne Win's leadership (1958-1960).
Rohingya's historical cooperation with the Burmese has long been one of the major sources of resentment and hatred of the secession-aspired Rakhine nationalists.
Rakhine nationalism is NOT based on the notion or idea of a Union of Burma, but rather is anchored in their collective feudal vision of a lost sovereign Rakhine Kingdom utterly crushed by the Burmese king in 1785.
The Rakhine nationalists ultimately want independence from Burma, and they hold deep resentment towards the dominant Burmese in the central plains of the Dry Zone who brought them as POWs and forced laborers as early as the 18th century - to build pagodas, to repair old irrigation systems and to do any menial jobs at the Burmese rulers' pleasure.
As a matter of fact, despite all this popular talk of collaborative Union spirit between the Burmese and the Rakhine Buddhists, neither can't stand the other.
Because the Burmese are dominant, numerically and in terms of political and military the Rakhine scapegoat the Rohingya for all their collective misery, failings, colonized status vis-a-vis the Burmese.
The result is the Rakhine taking it out on the Rohingya.
Before the central Burmese governments used the Rohingya to check on the independence/secessionist aspirations of the ultra-nationalist, feudal Rakhine, especially in Sittwe, Kyauk Phyu, and a small pockets of Rakhine nationalists.
Since 1978, in close collaboration with Rakhine nationalists such as historian the late Dr Aye Kyaw and Physics Professor San Than Aung, General Ne Win adopted an anti-Muslim and anti-Rohingya genocidal policies, which resulted in the passage of the 1982 Citizenship Act.
Geopolitically, Arakan or Rakhine coastline is one of the most crucial areas for both USA and China - it is crucial for Beijing because its Kyauk Hpyu island is excellent for its sea depth - deep sea port. The Chinese have 2 major oil and gas pipeline originating in Rakhine coast line. Rakhine is also the ONLY Chinese access to the Indian Sea. China is building a blue water navy to access the Indian Ocean. Its S. China Sea access is dotted with all the non-NATO US allies/proxies (Japan, S. Korea, the Philippines, and Singapore - and anti-Chinese Vietnam). That makes it imperative for China to bring Rakhine coast line into its strategic clutches. As far as the twin gas and oil pipeline - gas pumped from Burma's offshore and oil transported via sea routes from the Sea of Arabia (the Middle East) past Sri Lanka and S. India - it is meant to enable China to keep its energy flow, irrespective of whatever happens to the narrow Straits of Melacca.
So, the Chinese have been cultivating their ties with the Nazi-inspired Rakhine nationalists the likes of MP Aye Maung and are said to be even financing Aye Maung and his party - I can't verify it either way.
On its part, the United States is in Myanmar - not for human rights, not for reconciliation, not for democratization, but only as the result of American corporate interests - and longer terms anti-China strategy. This is verifiable despite their disingenuous, and intellectually stupid denial by American officials that its policy towards Myanmar has anything to do with US's concerns about the threats posed by rising China.
The result is the United States Government is complicit in the Rohingya genocide insofar as its refusal to recognize the unfolding genocide as a genocide. Rather outrageously, the United States Government through its US Embassy, the National Endowment for Democracy (National Democratic Institute, for instance) have provided 'strategic communications' - that is, lying professionally to the world - to Thein Sein Government - all under the cover of interfaith dialogue, reconciliation, etc.
Specifically, the United States Government and its proxies or official or consultants, helped with what I call 'Rohingya genocide whitewash report', written and signed off by my old history tutor Dr Myo Myint and his pupil Kyaw Yin Hlaing, both students of Benedict Anderson at Cornell in the 1980s and1990s, respectively. If one looks at the recommendations of that Rohingya genocide whitewash report you will see the finger prints of the Americans - parts of the recommendations look like Pentagon's wish-list of military cooperation with Burma's murderous Armed Forces.
For those who have taken a keen interest in the genocides, this is a rather familiar pattern - from Cambodia to Sri Lanka to now Myanmar.
There are those who pull the trigger. And there are those who issue order, usually UN-VERIFIABLE because the state's genocidal criminals are like cats which cover their shit and piss, to pull the trigger. And yet still there are those external players who enable the genocidists by refusing to call an unmistakable genocide a genocide.
In light of these rather despicable scenario, the Rohingyas only have bad options.
But the least we can do as CITIZENS with brains and hearts is to shine the spot light on the genocidal situation in Myanmar.
My advice to anyone who attempts to analyze, write about, or simply understand Burma or Myanmar:
assume the worst when it comes to the regime. They are far worse than you think humans are capable of in terms of sinking to depravity and ruthlessness.
Here is MY list of concrete, empirically verifiable acts the Burmese generals and ex-generals have been engaged in over the past 50 years since General Ne Win introduced the military rule on 2 March 1962. These acts are a given, irrespective of which general is in charge. They are getting worse.
Ask yourself this: do these acts suggest they are 'nation-builders' 'reformers' 'democratizers', 'sincere leaders', 'patriots', 'nationalists', etc.?
1) a long trail of broken promises, lies, deceptions, and distortions;
4) personal manipulations;
5) mass murders;
6) rape and gang rapes with impunity (that is, as a matter of policy NOT to prosecute soldier-/officer-rapists);
7) wanton destruction;
11) forced labor;
11) forced labor;
12) forced evictions and relocation;
13) Made-in-UK Four Cut terror campaigns (first used by the British troops in the then colonial Malaya against the anti-British Communist resistance);
13) Made-in-UK Four Cut terror campaigns (first used by the British troops in the then colonial Malaya against the anti-British Communist resistance);
15) threats and intimidations;
15) threats and intimidations;
17) summery execution;
18) outsourced mass violence;
19) incubate, stoke and mobilized ethno-religious racism;
20) promoting neo-Nazi ideas (that an entire group should be shipped out, interned or otherwise eradicate);
21) discrimination as a matter of policy;
22) fostering ethnic divide and rule;
23) commercial/resource/business enticement and charm offensives;
25) life and long years of imprisonment;
26) breeding civil wars;
27) planting bombs to create a climate of fear;
29) land and resource grab;
30) intellectual impoverishment of the public as a matter of policy;
31) deliberate destruction of health care system for the public at large;
32) the use of 'nationalism' as a smokescreen/ideological shield;
33) creation of cronies as the military and generals' wealth/portfolio managers (for in neo-Feudal Myanmar it is power that generates WEALTH, not the other way around); and
34) consolidation of the military's grip on power, wealth and population while barking 'reforms', 'transition', 'human rights', 'zero tolerance', 'multiculturalism', 'harmony', 'interfaith', and every other well-worn buzz word which pleases the Western ears, resonates with the shallow and stupid international mass media, and gives self-interested external players - governments, UN, EU, ASEAN, corporate, thinktanks, etc. - a cover for their dodgy agendas in Myanmar.
Here is the man from Oslo who failed the oppressed Tamil people and their resistance, Oslo's chief negotiator.
Solheim was the man who patronized yet another failed 'peace initiative' - - Myanmar Peace Support Initiative (MPSI). The MPSI has a few wacky consultants - such as Ashley South who argues, quite disgustingly to me, that the Karen resistance organizations want to prolong the Burmese Army's war against the Karens because the leaders are profiting from the deadly wars AND Richard Horsey who has been writing analyses as an ICG consultant, with a verifiably pro-regime spin on just about every Myanmar topics - 2010 elections, the genocide of the Rohingya, and the reforms.
If you wish to read an atypically diplomatically worded but essentially scathing and truthful analysis of Norway's Myanmar Peace Support Initiative here is the link -
Why Norway's Peace Support Initiative in Myanmar is not going to help the people who need peace most
Back to Solheim, my sources in Scandinavia told me that it was Solheim who gave away the whereabouts of the LTTE leader the slain Prabhakaran to Sri Lanka's genocidal regime. ( I don't have means to triangulate this serious accusation). Colombo sprayed on Prabhakaran's 12 years-old innocent son who really was captured, subsequently fed lunch and shot dead shortly after the boy ate lunch.
After his dismal record at 'peace making' in Sri Lanka, Solheim morphed into an early cheer leader coming under Than Myint-U's spell and that of Charles Petrie (and Richard Horsey).
Over the past 20 years, Norway's peace initiatives have consistently failed - heard of Oslo Accord which the Edward Said bitterly and rightly opposed?? and Sri Lanka's eradication of the Tamil resistance?
Norway's Nobel Peace Institute - nominally politically independent from the Norwegian government - have made politically motivated and utterly repugnant choices for its peace laureates, distorting the idea of peace and the standards against which deeds of a peace maker and peace promoter should be judged.
(While projecting itself as 'the world's leader exporter of peace', upon a closer examination a different story emerged: Norway, once an open collaborator with Hitler's regime, has consistently behaved as a coy lap dog of the United States, and its computer firms have supplied weapons parts, for instance, for the F-16 and other US-made fighter-bombers. The other quiet collaborators are Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. Only the Danes really fought back the Nazis.)
Here is my exchange with the man who successfully secured billions of dollars worth of telecommunication contract for Telenor, tried to kick start, with the British Government, venture capital investment in Myanmar's once lucrative rice agricultural sector, and spinned for Naypyidaw, while ignoring the fact that his business partners - Burmese generals and ex-generals - have been in charge of the Rohingya genocide of 35 years.
For those who may be concerned about the Chinese-owned Myitsone Dam construction - and all hydro-power projects in the Mekong Region (Greater Mekong Sub-region) you need to know that it is the dodgy Norwegian National Consulting firm named "Noj Consult" which drew up the ADB-World Bank-funded 'cross border electricity trading scheme through dam projects. Noj Consult and Norwegian ministries have a revolving door, and Noj Consult was sued for dodgy deals and acts of bribery in African countries.
Massgrave found in Mannar #SriLanka. Very few countries where such a discovery would not be investigated! http://t.co/xt8o7Qf59Y— Erik Solheim (@SolheimDAC) January 19, 2014
@SolheimDAC Minister Solheim, #Myanmar has a slow-burning #Rohingya #genocide. Why r you/#Norway cuddling murderers? @Vpedrosa @JamilaHanan— maung zarni (@drzarni) January 20, 2014
@drzarni @Vpedrosa @JamilaHanan Rohingya situation #Myanmar great concern. Need to reconcile muslims and buddhists in the area.— Erik Solheim (@SolheimDAC) January 20, 2014
@SolheimDAC @Vpedrosa @JamilaHanan The main issue - NOT simply sectarian; #Norway's business partner #Myanmar Gov. http://t.co/lXANYKMYBa— maung zarni (@drzarni) January 21, 2014
@drzarni @Vpedrosa @JamilaHanan Dear Maung Zarni! You have written a blog full of lies about me. Can I ask you to please retract it?— Erik Solheim (@SolheimDAC) January 21, 2014
@SolheimDAC @Vpedrosa Why did #Oslo commission 'liars' to review failing #Myanmar project? https://t.co/0IO18bIH0H https://t.co/g0N2jxAyq4— maung zarni (@drzarni) January 21, 2014
@SolheimDAC @Vpedrosa Minister, was I lying when I wrote you cuddle my country's rapist dictators? @jackpoint627 http://t.co/egO36qBYfY
@SolheimDAC @Vpedrosa Was it my 'lie' that #Oslo secured a deal for #Telenor from #Myanmar amidst wars/a genocide? http://t.co/dyZs51NScm
@SolheimDAC @Vpedrosa Minister, was it a 'lie' you and your government spin for #Myanmar's genocidal rapist regime? http://t.co/SJ53YGVCkM
@SolheimDAC @Vpedrosa Solheim, re-do you homework on #Myanmar. Your vanity/incompetence failed you in #SriLanka. http://t.co/AEB85P0eGO
@SolheimDAC @Vpedrosa Minister Solheim, If Truths r on your side, you dare publicly debating with me on your & #Norway's role in #Myanmar?
The crime of genocide is any of the following acts (conducts) committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Contextual common elements
The following are elements common to all offences of genocide that need to be proven by the Prosecution:
(1) Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group;
(2) The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such;
(1) Belonging to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group population.
Existence of a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group and belonging of the victims to that group(s)
= here we have to decide if NATIONAL or ETHNIC ? OBJ and/or SUBJ approach (both are OK here)
1.1.1. OBJECTIVE evidence of the existence of a protected group.
(« Stable and permanent group »)
- Evidence of the existence of a "national group".
= Evidence of :
official classification under national constitutions or laws.
members sharing a legal bond of common citizenship.
members sharing reciprocity of rights and duties.
distinctive identity in terms of nationality or national origin.
- Evidence of the existence of an "ethnical group".
= Evidence of :
official classification by identity cards.
members sharing a common language.
members sharing a common culture.
sedentary or nomadic character of the group.
- Evidence of the existence of a "racial group".
Evidence of :
members sharing hereditary physical traits.
members identifying themselves with a geographical region.
- Evidence of the existence of a "religious group".
= Evidence of :
members sharing the same religion.
members sharing the same denomination or mode of worship.
1.1.2. SUBJECTIVE evidence of the existence of a protected group.
- Evidence that a group is perceived as such by political or military leaders, or by the general public, or that a group is perceived as such by the perpetrators
- Evidence that a group is perceived as such by the members themselves.
(2) SPECIAL INTENT : The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such;
- Precisions on the the sufficiency of “circumstancial evidence” to prove genocidal intent:
The following factors are consired relevant to prove the mens rea element of génocide :
(a) The general and widespread nature of the atrocities committed;
(b) The general political doctrine giving rise to the acts;
(c) The scale of the actual or attempted destruction;
(d) Methodical way of planning the killings;
(e) The systematic manner of killing and disposal of bodies;
(f) The discriminatory nature of the acts;
(g) The discriminatory intent of the accused.
According to the International Criminal Tribunals : "[a]s a proof of specific intent, it may, in the absence of direct explicit evidence, be inferred from a number of facts and circumstances, such as the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities committed, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership of a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts."
Precisions regarding the distinction between Intent and Motive (only the first has to be proven, and the motive can not be used as a justification of the acts):
- According to the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunals, it is necessary « to distinguish specific intent from motive. The personal motive of the perpetrator of the crime of genocide may be, for example, to obtain personal economic benefits, or political advantage or some form of power. The existence of a personal motive does not preclude the perpetrator from also having the specific intent to commit génocide ».
- The term « as such » clarifies the specific intent requirement. It does not prohibit a conviction for genocide in a case which the perpetrator was also driven by other motivations that are legally irrelevant in this context
2.1. The perpetrator "intended" to destroy that group.
- Evidence inferred from the words, deeds or position of the perpetrator OR others
- Evidence inferred from the existence of a plan or policy to destroy that group.
- Evidence inferred from the systematic or widespread character or the nature of the genocidal acts (see the Dublin Report related to the existence of Crimes Against Humanity)
2.2. The perpetrator intended to "destroy" that group.
- Evidence of intention to destroy by physical or biological means.
- !! Not sufficient per se: évidence of cultural génocide (destruction of cultural and religious buildings), nor "ethnic cleansing", nor displacement, nor acts intended to defeat rebels.
2.3. The perpetrator intended to destroy that group "in whole or in part".
2.3.1. Intention to destroy the group in part.
- Evidence of intention to destroy a numerically significant part of the group (« massive destruction »)
- Evidence of intention to destroy a geographical defined part of the group.
- Evidence of intention to destroy a part of the group consisting of its leadership or a part of the group that is otherwise significant (« sélective destruction »).
2.3.2. Evidence which is not required.
- Evidence of the actual destruction of the group, nor that a substantial part of the group was actually destroyed.
2.4. The perpetrator intended to destroy that group "as such".
2.4.1. Evidence inferred from the words or conduct of the perpetrator.
- Evidence of statements by the perpetrator.
- Evidence of conduct by the perpetrator.
- Evidence of victims belonging to the group.
2.4.2. Evidence inferred from the context in which the genocidal acts were committed.
- Evidence of widespread and systematic violence.
- Evidence of a general campaign of persecution.
- Evidence of the number of the victims belonging to the group.
- Evidence of statements by others.
- Evidence of prior separation or classification of victims.
- Evidence of the opinions of witnesses as to why victims were killed.
2.4.3. Exculpatory evidence.
- Evidence of different basis on which victims were targeted or evidence that members of the group were not mage the victim of genocidal acts.
Specific act of genocide :
Killings (art. 2 (a) Convention 1948)
= Apart from the common elements mentioned above, two elements have to be proven by the Prosecution to establish the perpetration of an act of genocide by killing. First, with regard to the material element of the crime, the Prosecution has to prove that the perpetrator killed one or more persons (with direct or indorect methods). Then, with regard to the mental elements that must be satisfied for the crime, the intent to cause death and the intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part, (see Common Element 2, discussed above) must be established.
Serious bodily or mental harm (art. 2 (b) Convention 1948)
= Apart from the common elements mentioned above, two elements have to be proven by the Prosecution to establish the perpetration of an act of genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm. First, the perpetrator caused serious bodily and mental harm to one or more persons. Second, the perpetrator meant to engage in conduct which caused serious bodily and mental harm to one or more persons.
= Important precision:
“Causing serious bodily or mental harm' in sub-paragraph (b) is understood to mean, inter alia, acts of torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, sexual violence including rape, interrogations combined with beatings, threats of death, and harm that damages health or causes disfigurement or injury. The harm inflicted need not be permanent and irrémédiable ».
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction (art. 2 (c) Convention 1948)
= Important précisions :
1. « the expression deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destructions in whole or in part, should be construed as the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction».
2. « Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part' under sub-paragraph (c) does not require proof of a result. The acts envisaged by this sub-paragraph include, but are not limited to, methods of destruction apart from direct killings such as subjecting the group to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and denial of the right to medical services. Also included is the creation of circumstances that would lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing and hygiene or excessive work of physical exertion ».
3. « Therefore the conditions of life envisaged include rape, the starving of a group of people, reducing required medical services below a minimum, and withholding sufficient living accommodation for a reasonable period, provided the above would lead to the destruction of the group in whole or in part ».
Measures intended to prevent birth (art. 2 (d) Convention 1948)
= « the measures intended to prevent births within the group, should be construed as sexual mutilation, the practice of sterilization, forced birth control, separation of the sexes and prohibition of marriages. In patriarchal societies, where membership of a group is determined by the identity of the father, an example of a measure intended to prevent births within a group is the case where, during rape, a woman of the said group is deliberately impregnated by a man of another group, with the intent to have her give birth to a child who will consequently not belong to its mother's group.
Furthermore, (…) that measures intended to prevent births within the group may be physical, but can also be mental. For instance, rape can be a measure intended to prevent births when the person raped refuses subsequently to procreate, in the same way that members of a group can be led, through threats or trauma, not to procreate ».
Transferring children (art. 2 (e) Convention 1948)
= « (…) as in the case of measures intended to prevent births, the objective is not only to sanction a direct act of forcible physical transfer, but also to sanction acts of threats or trauma which would lead to the forcible transfer of children from one group to another ».
 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Nyiramasuhuko et al., "Judgement", ICTR-98-42-T, 24 June 2011, para. 5732 (footnote omitted). See also ICTR, Prosecutor v. Bizimungu et al, "Judgement", ICTR-99-50-T, 30 September 2011, para. 1958; ICTR, Prosecutor v. Ndahimana, "Judgement", ICTR-01-68-T, 30 December 2011, para. 804.
 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., "Judgement on Defence Motions to Acquit", IT-95-8-T, 3 September 2001, para. 46-61.
 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Jelisić, "Appeals Judgment ", IT-95-10-A, 5 July 2001, para. 47. See also ICTR, Prosecutor v. Gatete, "Judgment", ICTR-2000-61-T, 31 March 2011, and para. 583.IT-95-10-A, 5 July 2001, para. 47.
 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Jelisić, "Appeals Judgement", IT-95-10-A, 5 July 2001, para. 49.
 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Stakić ("Prijedor"), "Judgement", IT-97-24-T, 31 July 2003, para. 516.
 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, "Judgement", ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, paras. 505-506.
 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Stakić ("Prijedor"), "Judgement", IT-97-24-T, 31 July 2003, para. 517.
 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzidana, "Judgement", ICTR-95-1-T, 21 May 1999, para. 116.
 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, "Judgement", ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, para. 507-508.
 ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, "Judgement", ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, para. 509; as explicitly concurred within its entirety by ICTR, Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, "Judgement", ICTR-95-1-T, 21 May 1999, para. 118.
Reposting important analyses to understand state power- violence-racism-ethnic cleansing-political reform. On-going anti-Rohingya campaign is part of te re-configuration of state power. Seeing violence in Arakan state as 'communal conflict' will miss the most important of the violence.
Military roots of racism in Myanmar (Sep 2013) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-01-030913.html
Did the gov’t incite the racial violence targeting the Rohingya? (Oct 20120\) https://www.dvb.no/analysis/did-the-govt-incite-the-racial-violence-targeting-the-rohingya/24116
Myanmar's neo-Nazi Buddhists get free rein (April 2013) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-01-090413.html
Myanmar whitewashes ethnic cleansing (May 2013) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-03-010513.html
Similar articles by Asia Sentinel:
Burmese Neo-Nazi Movement Rising Against Muslims (March 2013) http://www.asiasentinel.com/society/burmese-neo-nazi-movement-rising-against-muslims/
Buddhist Nationalism in Burma Institutionalized racism against the Rohingya Muslims led Burma to genocide
IS BURMA’S ANTI-MUSLIM VIOLENCE LED BY “BUDDHIST NEO-NAZIS”
British aid for Myanmar ethnic cleansing http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-01-190713.html
But the stupid mass media and dishonest foreign diplomats in Rangoon and in the world's capitals have been ignoring the elephant in the room, and pressing on with their fiction of 'sectarian violence' between Buddhists and Muslims and the Rakhines and the Rohingya.
As in Nazi Germany, these genocidal situations always have external enablers - in Burma's cases, the corporate mass media, the corporate-controlled Western governments and autocratic ASEAN regimes have been playing this Nazi-enabler role.
I am powerless to stop this pathetic political game internationally. But the least I can do is to scream foul and record things as I KNOW them.
#Myanmar patronizes anti #Islam 969 #Nazi #Buddhist campaign: "keep #TheinSein in power. Oppose #AungSanSuuKyi"
#Myanmar #Buddhist monks look to theocratic #Iran & feudal #Saudi Arabia, the two enemies, as a model for Buddhists, & oppose #AungSanSuuKyi
#Myanmar monks and their neo-Nazi "#Buddhism" only political instrument for President Thein Sein & military @AssedBaig @drzarni @Vpedrosa
Keep President Thein Sein in power, Do not vote for Aung San Suu Kyi
- Leading Buddhist monks including the Nazi 969 monks and 969-sympathizers such as Thidagu Abbot, the Mandalay Conference on the 'Defense of Race and Faith',
Here is emerging the real two-fold logic behind mobilization of Buddhist public opinion AGAINST Islam and in favor of (Bama version) Buddhism.
This monk Rev. Aeindaparla, with the highest (traditional Buddhist) honor/degree - after learning the Tripidaka of the 3 baskets of all Buddhist cannons) - spelled out his political vision for the country:
1) I support Wirathu's teacher Thi-da-gu Abbot's view - that the public should vote to keep current President Thein Sein in 2015 (as opposed to Aung San Suu Kyi)
2) the majority of the Buddhist electorate knows ASSK's view towards Buddhism: she wants to internationalize and make our social and cultural life cosmopolitan.
3) we are a 80% Buddhist majority country. we want a President who will privilege our Buddhism above all other faiths. look at Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim countries and the type of pro-Islam leaders they pick
(Zarni's remark: this learned monk is incredibly ignorant about the fact that in those places people do NOT have the right to choose their own leaders or shape their own political systems).
There is no cure for Myanmar's genocidal racism against the Muslims and the Rohingya.