ANC's Arakan policy lacks foresight

Dr. Habib Siddiqui

It appears that when the entire world is crying out foul against the repressive SPDC regime and demanding restoration of democracy, equality, liberty and human rights for all inside Myanmar, many of her exiled political parties are making a mockery of all those principles. One such entity is the Arakan National Council (ANC) that includes exiled groups like the ALD, ALP, DPA, NUPA, AASYC, AWWA, RWU and some ultra-nationalist Rakhain academics, advisers and intellectuals.
   While the ANC was established in New Delhi, India in 2004, most of its member parties operate from inside Bangladesh. ANC's declared aim was to act as a leading political body for the people of the Arakan state of Myanmar for self-determination, justice, peace, prosperity, equality, integrity, tranquility and dignity in emerging its people with civilised modernity and democracy. But it does not require too much probing to see the ugly, harsh truth behind the façade of such high sounding rhetoric.
   
   Rohingyas ignored
   There is no Rohingya representation within the ANC. They are simply ignored, as if they do not exist. Not surprisingly, the so-called Arakan State Constitution, drafted by the ANC in 2004, is silent about the Rohingya people. This, in spite of the fact that Rohingyas make up for almost half of the population of Arakan [47 per cent; see Dr. Shwe Lu Maung's The Price of Silence, DewDrop, USA (2005), p. 252, for population statistics] and had successfully contested the 1990 elections, sweeping all the four constituencies in the Muslim-majority Mayu province by one of its parties (NDPHR), and were in a position to make political alliance with Daw Suu Kyi's party-the NLD-to form a coalition government in Arakan state if the military junta had honoured the election results. [The victory of NDPHR angered the military regime and its ultra-nationalist supporters within the majority Rakhain community, leading to forced expulsion of some 300,000 Rohingyas to Bangladesh in 1991.]
   The reason for such a nonchalant, if not hostile, attitude towards the Rohingyas can be explained by the fact that most of the member parties of the ANC are led and advised by anti-Rohingya, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Indian, and ultra-nationalist bigots. Its key advisor is a retired academic, Dr. Aye Kyaw, who co-authored the infamous 1982 Burma Citizenship Law that is at the heart of Rohingya Diaspora, leading to major mass exodus and ethnic cleansing in the last three decades. More than a million Rohingyas now live as unwanted refugees in many parts of our world.
   I wanted to believe that the ANC has been able to rise above the fray and correct its untenable positions, making the entity more inclusive and plural. But I was wrong. Last month I came across the "Policy Statement of ANC on the Peoples of Arakan", dated September 7, 2007. The statement was issued by the ANC Executive Committee. It stated in a non-flattering way that the Rohingyas were not recognised as indigenous people of Arakan.
   The statement says: "ANC regards the people who lived in Arakan before the British annexation of Burma in 1824 as indigenous, and those who immigrated after the British occupation of Burma as non-indigenous. ... As the Bengali Muslims and Hindus immigrated and settled in Arakan after the British occupation they are regarded as non-indigenous. ... The name (Rohingya) is used by descendants of Bengali Muslims who settled in Arakan after the British occupation of Burma."
   
   Big brotherliness
   The above policy statement is factually wrong and shows once again that the ANC is living in its xenophobic, racist, intolerant, feudal past. The smell of big-brotherly chauvinism or ultra-nationalism is everywhere within the body of the text. The statement goes on to say "It is not time to be quarrelling and attacking each other... It is time for all people of Arakan to stand firmly and unitedly on the principles of human rights, democracy, national equality and peaceful coexistence."
   What a hypocrisy when the same ANC twists historical facts and denies basic rights of the Rohingya people, calling them outsiders or recent settlers!
   As the Tokyo Conference on "Problems of Democratic Development in Burma and the Rohingya People" has demonstrated, contrary to ANC's obnoxious and distorted claims, the Rohingya people are, beyond any shadow of doubt, indigenous people of Arakan. They did not settle during the British occupation of Arakan (post-1824). They are the descendants of the indigenous Kalar, Kala, and Kula peoples of Arakan (similar to darker complexioned Indian/Bengalis found in neighbouring India/Bangladesh, in much contrast to the fair skinned, Mongoloid featured Rakhain people that had migrated to Myanmar from far-away Tibet) that had intermarried with, absorbed into, and converted mostly to the Islamic faith with Muslims that moved to the territory in various periods of Arakan's history, predating the British occupation period.
   Like their co-religionists-the Buddhists of Arakan-many of these Muslims, who identifies themselves as the Rohingyas, were forcibly evicted and/or chose to leave Arakan during Burman king Bodawpaya's atrocious rule (1784-1819) and settled in and around southern Chittagong. After the Burman regime (1784-1824) was defeated, the British occupation forces allowed resettlement of the former exiles and their descendants back to the territory. Any attempt to obscure and distort the history of exodus of hundreds of thousands of Arakanese, Muslims and Buddhists alike to the British Bengal during Bodawpaya's rule is disingenuous and deplorable, to say the least.
   If the descendants of resettled Rakhains from Bangladesh during the British occupation period (pre-1948) could pass the litmus test of Myanmar citizenship, ANC's selective criteria to exclude the Rohingyas demonstrate its biasness against the minority and depict their naked double standards. Moreover, they are at variance with the statements of founding fathers of Myanmar (see Aung San government's 1947 Panglong statement regarding citizenship criteria), let alone being at odds with the charters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
   
   Self-determination
   The Rohingyas are not demanding a separate state of their own inside Myanmar. If, however, their legitimate rights to citizenship and nationality are ignored and trampled upon by the Myanmar government and its backers within the ANC, comprising the majority Rakhaing ultra-nationalists, like any human beings in our planet, they have every right to self-determination, as has been enshrined in the scores of International laws.
   Regrettably, it is ANC's ultra-nationalism, chauvinism, racism and sectarianism that are the greatest roadblocks to a united, more inclusive, democratic Arakan and Myanmar. Through its endorsement of the 1982 Citizenship Law, it is the ANC that is dividing the Arakan into skeptical, if not hostile, camps. Its policy plays directly into the divide-and-rule policy of the SPDC. Obviously, the ANC has not learned to evolve into a pluralistic, democratic organisation that respects minority rights, that values their opinions, and is mindful of their legitimate aspirations and concerns. The statement from the group is a hypocritical attempt to distort the fundamental issue that is at the root of dehumanisation of millions of people within Arakan.
   If the ANC cares about democracy and human rights in Burma, and Arakan, in particular, it must not only reconsider its chauvinistic criteria for citizenship and nationality that are hypocritical and discriminatory, and aimed at dispossessing and marginalising almost half of the people of Arakan, i.e., the Rohingyas of Arakan state of Myanmar, owing to their distinct culture and religion, it must also denounce the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law. It has to come out of the closet taking bold measures that are progressive, humane, moral, ethical and conducive to a lasting peace in the region. It cannot behave like fascistic organisations, ignoring the fact that Arakan is a multi-racial, multi-religious state where almost half the population is non-Buddhist.
   
   Xenophobia
   The ANC cannot endorse and promote xenophobia, while at the same time calling for equality, democracy, peaceful coexistence and human rights. Its Policy Statement is too hypocritical and too one-sided to garner necessary respect and trust from affected communities. The ANC must show foresightedness by integrating minority voices within its leadership, rank and file. Let its actions speak loud about its seriousness to the goal of genuine integration and pluralism rather than mere statements that are too hollow and only show the ugly, dirty xenophobic self. It must allow Rohingya representation at equal footing, not as a second or third-class entity, but as equals with similar rights. It must, therefore, open the door for Rohingya representation both within the ANC and the ENC (Ethnic Nationalities Council).
   
   Acrimony
   Time is running fast. There is too much suspicion and animosity between various races and ethnicities within Burma, including Arakan. Burma needs integration, trust-building, equity and justice for all, and not failed assimilation attempts that disrobe, dispossess, and dehumanise minorities at the altar of the majority. As to Arakan, the ANC has a significant role to play in trust-building measures. It must develop genuine leadership that is foresighted, pragmatic, sincere and respected by all segments within the state. It can ill-afford to be looked upon as a representation of the Buddhist Arakanese only. It must understand the importance of initiating honest and open dialogue to ironing out its differences and uneasiness with the Rohingya community. That process can get a jumpstart with a sincere condemnation of the 1982 Myanmar Citizenship Law. Why not start this much desired reconciliation process right now? Why try to forge unity when its very intent and sincerity are in question?
   Ignoring the root causes of ethnic tensions and de-prioritising vital trust-building measures would be suicidal and stupid for the ANC.
   Dr. Siddiqui is Director of Arakan-Burma Research Institute, USA.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

The art of Propaganda...

Nasrine R. Karim

Being the CEO of a PR company, I can only take interest in the history of the propaganda machine used from time immemorial. For example: One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet for him given by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton, offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying: "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. "
   "I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone."
   "The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.
   You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?"
   "We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes" And that left all his colleagues with gaping mouths.
   With historians heavily involved in either defending or damning the war in Iraq, it might be good time to ponder the case of Viscount James Bryce-the historian.
   The Bryce Report was released on May 13, 1915. The British propaganda headquarters in Wellington House, near Buckingham Palace, made sure it went to virtually every newspaper in America. The impact was stupendous, as the headline and subheads in the New York Times made clear!
   "Not Only Individual Crimes, but Premeditated Slaughter in Belgium"
   "Young and old mutilated"
   "Women Attacked, Children Brutally Slain, Arson and Pillage Systematic"
   "Countenanced by officers"
   "Wanton Firing on Red Cross and White Flag: Prisoners and Wounded Shot"
   "Civilians used as shields"
   Consequently on May 27, 1915, Wellington House operatives in America reported to London: "Even in papers hostile to the Allies, there is not the slightest attempt to impugn the correctness of the facts alleged. Lord Bryce's prestige in America put skepticism out of the question." Charles Masterman, the head of Wellington House, told Bryce: "Your report has swept America."
   Early in 1915, the British government asked Viscount Bryce to head a royal commission to investigate the atrocity reports. Bryce was one of the best-known historians of the era; he had written widely praised books on the American government and on Irish history, sympathetically portraying the Gaels hard lot under British rule. In 1907, he had collaborated with an Anglo-Irish diplomat Roger Casement, to expose horrendous exploitation of Indian peoples on the Amazon by a British rubber company. From 1907-1913, he had served as British ambassador in Washington, where he became a popular figure.
   From the onset of World War I, stories of German atrocities filled British and American newspapers. These stories mostly emanated from the German march through Belgium to outflank French defenses in their drive on to Paris. Eyewitnesses described infantrymen "spearing" Belgian babies on their bayonets as they marched along, singing war songs. Accounts of Belgian boys with amputated hands (supposedly to prevent them from using guns) abounded. Tales of women with amputated breasts multiplied even faster!
   At the top of the atrocity list were rape stories. One eyewitness claimed the Germans dragged twenty young women out of their houses in a captured Belgian town and stretched them on tables in the village square, where each was violated by several "Huns" while the rest of the division watched and cheered. At British expense, a group of Belgians toured the United States telling these stories. President Woodrow Wilson solemnly received them in the White House and that gave them even more credibility.
   The Germans angrily denied these stories. So did American reporters covering the German army at the time.
   However, Bryce and his six fellow commissioners, an amalgam of distinguished lawyers, historians and jurists, "analysed" 1,200 depositions of eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen atrocious German behavior. Almost all the testimonies came from Belgians who had fled to England as refugees and some reports were from Belgian and British soldiers, collected in France. The commissioners themselves had interrogated none of these eyewitnesses! That task was left to "gentlemen of legal knowledge and experience"-lawyers. Since the asserted crimes took place in what continued to be a "war zone", there was no field investigative report or what would be stated as first-hand report. .
   Not a single witness was identified by name; the commissioners said this was justified in the case of Belgians by the fear that there might be German reprisals against family members. But British soldier witnesses remained equally anonymous, for no apparent reason. Nevertheless in his introduction, Bryce said he and his fellow commissioners had tested the evidence "severely." And his readers accepted this as gospel.
   After the war, historians who sought to examine the documentation for Bryce's stories were told that the files had mysteriously disappeared! This blatant evasion prompted most historians to dismiss 99 per cent of Bryce's atrocities as fabrications. One called the report "in itself one of the worst atrocities of the war."
   More recent scholars have scaled down the percentage of the Bryce Report's fabrications. Bryce more or less accurately summarised some of the worst excesses, such as the executions in the town of Dinant. But even these latter day scholars admit Bryce's report was seriously "contaminated" by the rapes, amputations and speared babies. They blamed this lapse on hysteria and war rage.
   The Bryce Report unquestionably helped England win the war. It convinced millions of Americans and other neutrals (it was translated into 27 languages) that the Germans were beasts in human form. No one except a few outsiders ever reproached Lord Bryce for his quasi fabrications. He went to his grave loaded with royal and academic honors.
   The Bryce Report had obvious connections to the British decision to maintain the blockade of Germany for seven months after the armistice in 1918, causing the starvation deaths of an estimated 600,000 elderly and very young Germans. This was far the greatest atrocity of World War I. It made every German hunger for revenge. By creating blind hatred of Germany, Bryce sowed the dragon's teeth of World War II...
   Even Clarence Darrow, a famous American lawyer, who specialised in winning acquittals for seemingly guilty clients, was a skeptic. He went to France in 1915 to search for a single eyewitness who could confirm even one of the Bryce stories. Increasingly doubtful, Darrow announced that he would pay $1,000 - a very large sum in 1915 (more than $17,000 in 21st Century money) to anyone who produced a Belgian or a French boy whose hands had been amputated by a German soldier. Nobody applied....
   Starting with Afghanistan, it is alleged that the White House threatened big corporate media it would be held "unpatriotic" and occasionally hinted at unspecified reprisals if coverage did not actively support the war effort there and in Iraq. Big media too often caved in and sometimes sounding like a public relations arm of the administration.
   Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein was a monster, but the military invasion to depose him is seen by many as illegitimate, unprovoked, and a blatant violation of the UN Charter, setting an unfortunate precedent in international relations and casting the Americans as hate machines for at least two generations.
   Even the august New York Times allowed itself to be used. It should instead be anguishing that its pages trumpeted phony reports about Iraqi weapons and links to Al-Qaeda that came from anti-Saddam exile groups and the pro-war cabal in the Pentagon.
   The British and Canadian media however, carried both pro- and anti-war views; as a result, there was far more healthy skepticism in both nations about the war than in America.
   It will require a superhuman effort to penetrate and unravel the murky thicket of competing government bureaucracies, spooks, exiles, defectors and other self-serving sources, magazine editors, think-tank gurus and assorted ideologues who, in Washington at least, have a massive say in the shaping of foreign policy. Remember Britain's Dr. Kelly had to give his life....
   Dr Kelly, 59, had been caught up in a row between the BBC and the government about the use of intelligence reports in the run-up to the war with Iraq. By his death - the truth about Tony Blair Govt.'s alleged "fudging" of the truth will be buried for good.
   Dr. Kelly had told the Foreign Affairs select committee he had spoken to BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan but denied he was the main source for a story about claims that a dossier on Iraq had been "sexed up". Dr Kelly left his home in Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, at about 1500 BST on a Thursday, for a walk and went missing. Later they found his body - a stone throw away from his home. Nobody has ever found the truth behind this disappearance and alleged suicide.
   In contrast, much of the U.S. mainstream media muffled any criticism, and became part of the war effort by devoting itself to patriotic flag-waving. Americans would have been totally misled had it not been for such Internet sites as Antiwar.com, Bigeye and LewRockwell, and incisive magazines such as American Conservative, New Yorker and Harpers.
   Leading journalists exposed the myth of a Free Press in the US. This was accounted by 18 award-winning journalists is in the book "Into the Buzzsaw," edited by Kristina Borjesson. All of these writers were prevented by corporate media ownership from reporting major, incisive and revealing news at one time or another. Some were even fired or laid off. These journalists have won numerous awards, including several Emmys and a Pulitzer.
   Thank God for the courageous proponents of truth, otherwise we would have lived in total darkness. In Bangladesh, we still have a long road ahead before we can really call ourselves the bastion of "free press". We are still afraid of some truths. Freedom of Press comes with a lot of responsibility which has to be firmly understood by many in this profession in this country. Just a flair for reporting is not enough. The imparting of knowledge with the required language skill and diplomacy is an art. However, to create a propaganda machine - THAT needs a lot of detailed research, knowledge of history, fluency of words, to instantly gage difficult situations and above all, the absolute confidence in obfuscating with panache! It is a skill and not everyone's cup of tea!

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

China unveils its future leaders at 17th Party Congress Barrister Harun ur Rashid

On 15th October, the week-long five-yearly Communist Party Congress met at its 17th session at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing and Chinese President Hu Jintao opened the congress by promising modest reforms to make government institutions more responsive while strengthening one-party rule. Last Party Congress was held in 2002.
   The Communist Party is the sole party in power in China. The party with 73.4 million members-reportedly10 per cent increased in the past five years and a third of the new members were graduates while a third being women. Four per cent of these new members are working in the private sector.
   About 1,300 foreign and local newsmen and 2,219 elected delegates attended the party Congress. These delegates were elected to the Congress through a series of staggered elections in which one level of the party elects delegates to the next higher party congress..
   
   Leadership unveiled
   On last day of the Congress October 22, the China's Communist Party has unveiled the leadership line-up that will steer the country for the next five years.
   President Hu Jintao won a second term as party and army chief, while four new faces joined the party's top body, the Politburo Standing Committee. They included two men seen as potential successors to Mr Hu in 2012 - Shanghai party chief Xi Jinping and the head of Liaoning province, Li Keqiang.
   The powerful nine-member Standing Committee has been elected by the party's 204-member Central Committee. The Politburo Standing Committee makes major policy decisions for the government to implement and the National People's Congress in next March will elevate its members to top government positions.
   The following is the list of nine Standing Committee of Politburo members:
   President Hu Jintao, Wu Bangguo, head of the legislature, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Jia Qinglin, head of consultative committee conference, Li Changchun, the party chief for popular support, Xi Jinping, head of the secretariat of the party, Li Keqiang, executive Vice prime Minister,, Hu Guoqiang, head of internal party discipline and ZhouYongkang, China's police chief.
   The Congress chose the New Central Committee of about 200 members, with 100 alternate members. Although the Congress has formally elected the Central Committee and Politburo, in practice these positions are negotiated before the Congress met.
   Nominees to Party positions are invariably elected by wide margins in single-candidate votes, although there is room for symbolic protest votes ("no" or "abstain" votes) that embarrass the party leadership.
   Despite its symbolic nature, it maintains an important role because it is the occasion at which the results of these deliberations are publicly announced, and in which the PRC leadership faces both domestic and foreign newsmen through a press conference.
   Since the mid-1980s, the Communist Party has attempted to maintain a smooth and orderly succession and avoid a cult of personality, by having a major shift in personnel every ten years in even-number party congresses, and by promoting people in preparation for this shift in odd-number party congresses.
   These mechanisms have been institutionalized by mandatory retirement ages, and provisions in both the Party and state constitutions that limit the term of office of officials to two five-year terms.
   Because of the pyramid structure of the party and the existence of mandatory retirement ages, cadres who are not promoted at a party congress are likely to face the end of their political careers. Current provincial level officials see the Congress as a chance for promotion to Beijing.
   The Congress has diminished the amount of influence by former President Jiang Zemin, through his "Shanhai clique" who did not embrace the present focus in China's development process from the pace to the quality of growth.
   
   Likely Successors
   There is on-going speculation about Hu's successor. Although the subject of succession speculation is largely taboo within the Chinese media, Hong Kong as well as western media, have predicted either Xi Jinping (54) or Li Keqiang,(52) currently inducted in the Standing Committee of the Politburo, would be the successor.
   Both are in their fifties with a Ph-D and with some fluency in English. If one succeeds Hu Jintao as top leader, then the other would be Prime Minister. News paper reports suggest that Xi Jingping is likely to be the successoir of current top leader Hu Jintao.
   The rise of Xi and Li is also a sign of how much China is changing. Like Hu, Xi and Li belong to a new generation of Chinese leaders who are pragmatic, steeped in economic experience and increasingly has backgrounds in finance and law, in contrast to the engineers and soldiers who preceded them.
   The situation in China is the reverse of that in the US, where a re-elected President often becomes a lame duck in his second term. In China, the second five year term of the President gives more power and prestige and he can line up his successor.
   Hu's version of this doctrine is termed the Scientific Development Concept to develop a "harmonious society," and it owes more to Confucius than to Mao Zedong or Karl Marx.
   The policy of the second term of President Hu is reportedly to focus on pollution, corruption and reduction of widening disparity between rich and poor within the country. On the economic side, it will emphasise on quality of goods and increase of manufacturing parts to assemble goods, instead of import. The energy security is the most important and it will continue to have good relations with the resource-rich countries, from where China will get gas and oil.
   The foreign policy would likely to remain the same under President Hu in his second term. He said the country would pursue a peaceful path internationally. He warned Taiwan against further secessionist activities, but emphasized China's desire for peaceful reunification.
   At the party Congress, as people at the top level of the party retire, there is room for younger members of the party to move up one level. Hence the party congress is a time of a general personnel reshuffle, and the climax of negotiations that involve not only the top leadership but practically all significant political positions in China.
   A Communist Party Congress is a significant event in Chinese politics since it formally decides the leadership of the People's Republic of China.
   The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN Geneva.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE