U.S. Determinization of Genocide in Myanmar: Part One, Roots

Speaker 1 [00:00:01]

Welcome to the New Books Network.

Outro [00:00:07]

This is the Nordic Asia podcast.

Terese Gagnon [00:00:14]

Welcome to the Nordic Asia Podcast, a collaboration sharing expertise on Asia across the Nordic region. My name is Terese Gagnon and I'm a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen and the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. And I will be your host today. Joining me today is Kyaw Zeyar Win. Kyaw Zeyar Win is a project coordinator at the International Republican Institute. He is an expert in politics, international relations and human rights with a focus on Myanmar. He holds a master's in international relations from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at York University, where he was an Open Society fellow. He has previously worked at organizations including Voice of America and Amnesty International. He is the author of the book chapter Securitisation of Rohingya in Myanmar. From the book Myanmar Transformed People, Places and Politics. This is part one of a two part series discussing the securitisation of Rohingya in Myanmar with Kyaw Zeyar Win, and he will be speaking with us today, particularly about the US Government's long awaited determination of genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar, which was delivered in March 2022. So in this conversation, we will hear from there about the roots of the Rohingya genocide, which happened in 2017 in relation to the long history of securitisation of Rohingya in Myanmar. And we will also discuss the possible implications of the US government's determination of genocide for post-coup Myanmar, as well as current issues and challenges facing Rohingya communities inside and outside of Myanmar. Welcome to the podcast. They are.

Kyaw Zeyar Win [00:01:50]

Thank you very much. Really honored to contribute to this podcast. Thank you.

Terese Gagnon [00:01:55]

Thank you. So to go ahead and jump right in and perhaps to provide a little context for our listeners, in March of this year, 2022, the US government announced its determination that genocide had been committed by the Myanmar military against Rohingya people in Myanmar's Rakhine State in 2017. This was a decision that had been long awaited by many, and it has fueled some hope that the government may now take a more decisive step in bringing the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice. The same military that has now seized power through the February 1st, 2021 coup in Myanmar. So while most of our listeners will probably be aware of the atrocities that occurred against Rohingya communities in 2017 and also possibly of the atrocities that occurred before that in 2013, the decades long history of the systemic securitisation of Rohingya communities is less widely understood. Kyar Zeyar, could you briefly describe for us that history and how it led up to the genocide that occurred in 2017?

Kyaw Zeyar Win [00:02:57]

Yeah. First of all, this is really a good initiative that the United State Department declaration of the genocide against the Rohingya community in Burma. So when we see the Rohingya issue, I will say it has two main aspect from the Rohingya issue. First is the citizenship issue. Like the Myanmar current citizenship law, the 1982 citizenship law excluded the Rohingya from the national ethnicity. That makes them defer to statelessness. So for a long time. And another issue is the identity issue. Like Burma failed to create a national identity that embrace all the ethnicities residing in the Burma territory. Since the Burmese Burma independence in 1948. So this is the second issue. So from the citizenship perspective, Burma failed to embrace diverse community living in today's Burma territory since the 1948, since the Independent in 1948, Burma successive leaders, predominantly Burma, ethnicity and Buddhist follower. They envisioned the country's identity as a Buddhist country, as a sense of the continuity from pre-colonial Burma. You know, based on this perception, based on this approach, they have been promoting Buddhism as a glue cohesive among the majority population, because the country's demography shows in the census, approximately 89% of the country's population follow Buddhism. This data encouraged the power seeking politician, and fortunately, the country has experienced a long lasting military dictatorship since 1962. So the military dictator, in order to hold the power for a long time and to implement their desire policy, the military dictator create a national enemy that easily disrupt the public attention from their failure to this national enemy. So with that said, the military, like the successive dictator, create the existential threat to the nation, their national security. In this way, the Rohingya community and Rohingya identity became a substantial threat to the country's sovereignty, territorial security, national identity and societal security, including the economic security. So this is not the one year or two year or the short term. This is for a long time, like since the 1962. So it's almost like five decades long. Another point is, like from the identity perspective, the political leaders view the Rohingya identity as an existential threat to the Burma and Buddhist identity. So these Rohingya community, concentrated in northern Rakhine State have always been secessionists who have tried to separate Rakhine State from Burma and to Bangladesh or establish an Islamic state. They see this way by linking the religious community throughout the contemporary history to the past Mujahideen rebellion and other Islamic. How can I say the terrorist attack? In other countries. They link with the Rohingya issue with this international issue. Then they create a Rohingya community. Hey, they are Muslim, they link with the other Muslim group and then they have hidden agenda to separate our country. So they create this narrative and the power elites and the politician, especially power seeking politician, spread this narrative. And then on the other hand, they show that they are the only leaders who can prevent from this a substantial threat and who can maintain the country's national identity, country's sovereignty and country's national security. So they built their image in this way. They are getting more power and more popular. On the other hand, Rohingya community became more and more secure and framed as a illegal immigrant, and they see that these Rohingya community does not belong to Burma in any way. So the military leaders and Burmese and Rakhine political elites also approach this issue through the whole camp first. So who can first in this area? So this is from the historical or from the anthropological perspective, This this question is meaningless, literally meaningless. So we we cannot answer who came first in this and then this is not the right approach to resolve this issue. This is totally human suffering by manmade disaster, manmade issue. So we can approach in citizenship issue by changing the citizenship law and building the capacity to the country's national to to pursue their authentic right in their way. So in this way they can overcome and also identity issue. We can promote integration, we can promote cohesion, and we can promote the forming and national identity that can embrace all other community. In this way, we can overcome so bad that the problem is the Burmese authority. Burmese successive leaders approach in a different way. Instead of resolving the problem. The issue is getting worse. And so because of the long lasting discriminatory policy, the Rohingya community became deferred to statelessness. For example, they are living inside a Burmese territory, but they are not recognised as a Burmese national. So literally they are stateless, but living in the Burma and you know, any children born in Burma is illegal. This is one of the situation that stateless person face. So they are detained in the this ghetto like, you know, detention camp or, you know, this the northern Rakhine state. They are detained in this area. They cannot go other villages or other towns or they cannot go without permission. They cannot join the university or higher education. If someone one married, they have to apply the registration and they have to apply for permission. Without permission, they cannot even marry each other. Those permission, they have to wait for years. And some people want to get permission quickly. They have to give bribe. Not only the human population, but also the dog cattle and calves goes everything, even the chicken, any cow they have to report to the local authority. These local authority are not Rohingya, but the 4 million people are Rohingya. But the authority, just individuals are not Rohingya. They are assigned from the government. So this area is literally a ghetto like situation camp detention camp. Even though they they fled. Now the many Rohingya fled the country and live in the refugee camp in Bangladesh. But their situation in back home is not too different from them. Since 2012, the anti Rohingya violence or communal violence between the Rohingya and Rakhine community outbreak and then the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya since that time lost their home and villages and they were moved to the IDP camps in Rakhine State. Since that time now almost ten years, they have been living in that very small and crowded IDP camp and they have no future. Many, many children were born and now ten years old. Refugee, IDP, stateless. They have nothing. They have no future. So this desperate condition and resolve yet. And then since 2015, the Burmese government also changed the electoral law, excluded Rohingya from giving vote and excluded Rohingya from presenting their community. This is the last situation that Rohingya were totally excluded from not only the social sphere, but also the political sphere. They cannot vote. They cannot represent. So nothing to resolve their issue and there is no channel to present. They are suffering. Political sphere is totally blocked. That make the violence sphere is open. So, you know, there is no channel to resolve their suffering and their issue. So this community, they were pushed to be a stream. From my perspective, there is no option to resolve or to overcome this situation. They are outdated. These people are blocked from the the wall. Many people in this area, they don't know what happened outside of work. So those people, those desperate people choose desperate way to resolve that situation. Maybe this is one of the cost that leads to another violence in 2016, 2017. And then revenge, extrajudicial and exceptional revenge by the Burmese military driven out more than 700,000 Rohingya from the country. This is more than 60% of the Rohingya population were now driven out. And until now, they have no future. Or literally, they became refugees. They live in the refugee camp, desperate and no future. There is nothing guaranteed to return back with dignity and safety in the near future. No. So it is unlikely yet. That's why this situation happened in this way. And many analysts thought that the 2017, 20 1617 Rohingya problem is also created by the military but do not have any specific evidence to support this argument. But in the history, the Rohingya were driven out from that country by the military clearance operation. Brutal clearance operation. This is not the first time. In 1977 78, the military conducted brutal, exceptional operation that driven out. At that time, 200,000 Rohingya from Burma and and 1991 to 1994. Again, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fled because of the same military operation in 2012, 2013, again, internally displaced and then 20 1617. The current problem happened. But this time the United State Department decided that this is the genocide against a specific community specified ethnicity. This is what I see. The situation regarding the 2017 and genocide issue.

Terese Gagnon [00:15:48]

Yeah. Thank you so much Zeyar for walking us through that long and very difficult history and helping us see that this has been something that's been systematic and ongoing for a really long time. What you described is the level of dehumanization that think is almost impossible for most of us to comprehend really, really painful situations. To imagine people being born without the rights that most people would be familiar with as basic human rights. And basic citizenship is really, really hard to even fully wrap our minds around. I think one thing that is still confusing or surprising to a lot of people is the fact that this genocide in 2017 occurred at the time when the National League for Democracy was actually in power. And think lots of people based in the US or in Europe thought that that was the time when Myanmar was on a path to democratize. And so it was quite confusing, I think, for lots of people outside of Myanmar trying to understand how it was that this horrible atrocity could have happened at that moment. And in your chapter, the securitisation of Rohingya in Myanmar, you make a very compelling argument about why that did occur and why we didn't see the positive changes in Myanmar government's treatment of Rohingya during the time that Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, was in power. Could you tell us a little bit about your argument in that chapter?

Kyaw Zeyar Win [00:17:20]

Sure. This is very interesting that I explained in my chapter how the securitization of the Rohingya process changed over time. At first, let's say in 1980. At that time, generally, when who is the dictator of the first military dictator who ruled that country for more than 20 years and who started initiative, the current Burma citizenship law that totally effectively excluded the Rohingya and other small minorities from the national catalog. At that time when they developed citizenship law, they created the narrative that India and China are not trustworthy. And so these people should not be recognized as a full fledged citizenship of Burma. The power elite and authority started the securitization securitization narrative, creating this specific group or community for trained a specific group or community as an existential threat to the referent object. So in this case, the referent object is for main referent object that the people are highly valued. Like, for example, the identity majority people highly value. They cannot compromise with their bodies in identity. Very lovely and also ethnic identity like Burma or Rakhine or the recognized ethnic identity. The third is sovereignty or the country's territory. They see that from the kitchen state or to the button the way bake. This is the dairy. So they see that from the top to the bottom. They own this land. Most of the Burmese people have the same attitude. They own this land. They highly value in this way. And also like the economic security. They see that Rohingya are threatened to these four main referent object. Secession is agenda so that threaten to the territorial security. They always doing business with their own people. They never buy or sell with other people. Because of this narrative, many people started fear that, okay, these people, these Rohingya people threaten to our economic security. And also these people, these Rohingya speak only their language and, you know, maintain only their culture. They do not adopt other people's culture, talk other people language. So this narrative also threaten, okay, these people to help your people increase population very quickly. And in the future, near future, these Rohingya people will outnumber ethnic people will be diminished, and then the country will be Muslim country. They fear this way. So this is not the baseless fear. They are systematically brainwash or they are systematically propagandized through mass media and channel and book everything and small booklet to the big book, everything. Even I grown up in Burma by reading this kind of narrative, this kind of book. So in this sphere. At that first, politicians started this narrative, this securitization process. Then after two decades, three decades later, now majority people internalize this narrative. And then populist politicians try to behave in line with the majority people's expectation. So that even though the NLD or Aung San Suu Kyi came in power, instead of correcting the ground narrative or instead of educating the public by democratic norms, they failed to do this way and they try to time serve in line with the public expectation, okay, we will protect our nation, we will protect our religion. You know, they fail to educate the public. And then they also try to support or reinforce or really entrenched narrative among the civilian. This is why even though our San Suu Kyi or NLD came in power, the problem remained unchanged and even worse, because, you know, hey, our leaders is stand with us and we stand with our future. We stand with military and then that we can see in 2017 and why the military operation against the Rohingya. Many people stand with the military and support the military operation because they sincerely believed that they were besieged by the international, you know, Muslim country and they were threatened by this Rohingya community. So they demand a strong leader who can protect and who can at least mitigate their concern. Then the the populist politician failed this gap. That's why I leave or this situation as a bottom up securitization. Previously, this is a top down securitization. But over time, because of the internalized and institutionalized and then that shape the political elite again. So bottom up securitization, that makes the that makes the Rohingya issue intractable. That I explain in my chapter in this week.

Terese Gagnon [00:23:39]

Thank you. Thank you, Zeyar. Yeah, your chapter was so illuminating for me, understanding more about that history and especially this dynamic of interplay between both top down and bottom up securitization was quite informative and to help clarify a lot of things that had been wondering about Also as you were speaking, it reminded me that around the same time there were parallels happening between Trump's rhetoric and Aung San Suu Kyi's rhetoric. As I'm sure you remember, when white nationalists marched in Charlottesville and committed acts of violence, Trump spoke about there being good people and violence on both both sides, which was very similar to Aung San Suu Kyi's rhetoric about there being violence on both sides. Narrative was something that both of them were saying at almost the same time, which was quite an interesting parallel. And think there are some of those similar dynamics of circular, bottom up and top down securitization in in both instances, which is maybe something that I think your theory also has application beyond Myanmar. Of course, it's incredibly important to think about Myanmar on its own terms. That's that's probably the first important. But think that your theory also could definitely travel and help us understand other context.

Kyaw Zeyar Win [00:24:58]

Can I add one thing? I also explained interval process between the top down and bottom up. You know, there are also horizontal securitization happen like for example, this is like a peer pressure for. So when I was in Burma at that time, I was also in the middle of the problem and I was at the time the activist and the oppose strongly oppose against this situation. So for example, I didn't dare to express my real feeling or opinion because I care about my surrounding my peers or my supervisor boss or whatever. You know, this is like the horizontal securitization. This is like we have pressure. It doesn't come from the top down or button it. Everyday. Ordinary people do not speak out about this community or otherwise. I will be labeled as pro Bengali or pro Muslim or otherwise like, you know, traitors, national traitors. I have also a lot of evidence that happened. So, for example, for example, in Rakhine State in 2012, a photo spread on social media showing a Rakhine man experiencing humiliating punishment from his own community because by wearing a placard saying, I'm a traitor and slave of color. So a caption beneath the photo read The man who buy or sell groceries to Chola. They serve food to Chola so that this person wear humiliating punishment, walk around the town. And this is not the only incident. I have even three. Maybe they have much more incident happened in this area because, you know, this is a kind of evidence of the horizontal securitization and then bottom up securitization. And this makes the situation, you know, all or nothing environment. So if we want to resolve, we cannot address just one point or just one pass, but there is no straight through or linear approach in this case because this is like we see in multifaceted issue, we need a holistic approach to see and to overcome the situation. So this is what I argue in my chapter explaining this way.

Terese Gagnon [00:27:49]

Yeah. Thank you, Zeyar. Yes. Think the way you speak about horizontal securitization resonates with a lot of mechanisms of control that have been happening in Myanmar for a long time. Thank you so much for speaking with us. They are thank you for sharing these really important insights with us. My name is Terese Gagnon and I have been speaking with Kyaw Zeyar Win. When this conversation with Chaz, when discussing the roots of securitisation of Rohingya in Myanmar and the US government's determination of genocide will be continued in a future episode of the Nordic Asia podcast. And thank you to our listener for joining the Nordic Asia podcast showcasing Nordic collaboration in studying Asia.

Outro [00:28:33]

You have been listening to the Nordic Asia podcast