writer: Anshu N. Chatterjee
The Rohingya are fleeing Myanmar. Over half a million have entered Bangladesh in the past few months and this is in addition to those who left over the past five years. Bangladesh, a country with its own financial and political woes, clearly states that the Rohingya are not Bengalis as Myanmar claims, so they need to return to Myanmar at some point.
Why are the Rohingya fleeing? The logic of violence in Myanmar goes as such: Rohingya, who have resided in Rakhine since the British colonization, came from what are now border regions of Burma and Bangladesh. The borders actually came later. According to Myanmar, the crackdown is due to Rohingya Islamist militancy, which is causing ethnic clashes in the region. Yet, the story is older. In 1982, the state declared them as foreigners. While the militants triggered the current military action, the roots of the militancy lie in the state’s exclusionary practices. Despite UN threats/pleas to Aung Suu Kyi to stop the ethnic cleansing, violence continues. In fact, her feable response reveals the limits of her powers in controlling the military.
Meanwhile, Rohingya represent another wave of refugees in a world that is still addressing the issue of Afghans, Syrians, South Sudanese, Iraqis, Yemeni, and counting. Rohingya plight adds to the high numbers of the displaced: over 67 million, out of which approximately 22 million are refugees. This crisis comes at a time when donor or host countries are confronting conservative movements seeking to close their borders; they claim that the burden of refugees on their economies is too much to bear. Even Saudi Arabia, where the Rohingya found some refuge in the 1970s, offers a minimal support of $20 million to Bangladesh. Some token effort in US and Germany to accommodate them is visible, but overall the developed world is tired of refugees.
Borrowed from Japan Times...
Given the fact that refugees make up a small percentage of overall migrants, underlying this exhaustion is prejudice rather than financial stress. In 2015, for instance, only 1.3 million refugees entered all of Europe, and 83,000 entered the U.S. While the numbers seem significant, to put in a context, the city of San Francisco is made up of a little less than one million people. Meanwhile, the economies of these developed countries appear to be doing fine in macro-terms at least. They remain the wealthiest among the wealthy.
Where then are the rest of the 22 million ending up? Not surprisingly, a majority run to their neighbors. The Rohingya (a million) are in Bangladesh: Syrians (four million) in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon; the Afghans in Pakistan and Iran (2 million remain); Yemenis in Ethiopia. These hosts are less-developed economies except for Turkey. In other words, developed economies don’t carry the burden of refugees, and the notion that this is not their burden is ludicrous. These people are fleeing due to conflicts shaped by priorities of the global powers.
First, in case people forgot, the Afghans became a global problem due to a war that was initiated by the great powers during the cold war; the Afghans gained nothing but death and destruction. That war evolved into a global war on terror when Taliban decided to provide safe havens to Al Qaeda, who benefitted tremendously from the American and Saudi resources poured into the Afghan-Soviet War. The violence continues with weekly bombings (200 dead just last week) and an economy based on opium trade that promises a gun in every house. Yet, the average Afghan is deeply encouraged to repatriate. The incentives come in the form of denial of asylum, camp closures, and a care package from UNCHR to repatriate.
Then there are the Syrians, also fleeing from a not-so-local war. What began as a local protest during an economic crisis that challenged the authoritarian regime of Assad, was high-jacked by external forces seeking to influence the region. The US faced policy contradictions: should it let democratic revolution take its course or should it ensure that the right democrats win the civil war? The Russians stepped in to back Assad, their historical ally. Meanwhile, the neighbors, such as the Turks, unhappy with Assad, were also willing to take advantage of the crisis. They then received the largest number of refugees.
Yemenis face similar issues: what began as a local protest when Houthis and others rebelled against their not-so democratic president who was unresponsive to their economic conditions, caused by a drought and more, was high-jacked by the Saudis and Iranians. Al Qaeda is also present, hence, the U.S. drones. Yet, no one wants Yemeni refugees as they top the list of the proposed U.S. ban on travelers.
To return to the Rohingya, is the clash between Muslims and Buddhists? Another sign of the presumed cultural clash of our times? Rohingya lost their citizenship decades ago, but the current conflict begs the question of why now. Could the answer lie in the increasing scarcity of land in Rakhine, which now attracts mining and energy corporations? Apparently, the state, since the 1990s is engaged in land-grabbing; land which they claim is unused and then turned i over to corporate interests. One would think that the poor benefit from expanded investments, but it turns out that as land becomes scarce, so does tolerance.
How does one explain the behavior of countries in the region towards the Rohingya? There are some secular/economic explanations, which are just as unacceptable. Saudis ship their oil to China through Burma. The Modi government is in the process of expanding its relationship with the Myanmar in order to compete with the Chinese presence, so it refuses to label the Rohingya as refugees fleeing persecution. But all of this is actually useless chatter, because none of these countries that have received Rohingya can send them back to Myanmar; the sought-out ally doesn’t want them; hence the beautiful dilemma.