For Myanmar’s army, the campaign of atrocity it has waged to drive hundreds of thousands of ethnic Rohingya Muslims out of the country is no innovation. The force was born in blood 76 years ago and has been shedding it ever since. Its founders, known as the Thirty Comrades, established the army in 1941 with a ghoulish ceremony in Bangkok, where they drew each other’s blood with a single syringe, mixed it in a silver bowl and drank it to seal their vow of loyalty. The army that they formed led the nation to independence in 1948. But except for a brief, initial period of peace, it has spent the last seven decades warring with its own people. The army, known as the Tatmadaw, seized power from the civilian government in Burma, as the country is also known, in 1962. The military killed thousands of protesters to keep power in 1988 and suppressed another popular uprising, the Saffron Revolution, in 2007. In constant fighting with ethnic minorities, the Tatmadaw has displaced millions of people while taking billions of dollars in profit from jade mines, teak forests and other natural resources. Its strategy has been to fight ethnic rebels to a standstill, manage the conflicts through cease-fires and enrich its officers. “There has never been any sense of needing to win hearts and minds,” said Zachary Abuza, a professor at the National War College in Washington. “The Tatmadaw’s doctrine is based on total submission by the population through fear. And to that end, there is little they will not do.” Though it holds itself up as the protector of Myanmar’s people, the military has a long history of murdering civilians, torturing and executing prisoners, committing rape, conscripting child soldiers, impressing convicts as porters and making civilians walk ahead of its troops to trip land mines. After decades of running an isolated pariah state, the military began loosening its grip in 2010, allowing elections and gradually giving civilian leaders authority over public services, foreign affairs and economic policy. It also began permitting public access to the internet and the mass sale of cellphones. The moves, aimed at reviving a struggling economy, gave Myanmar a veneer of democracy and prompted the United States and the European Union to lift economic sanctions. But under the Constitution it imposed in 2008, the Tatmadaw is not subject to civilian authority, it unilaterally appoints a quarter of the Parliament and the commander-in-chief retains control over many key institutions, including the police and border guards. And the atrocities against minorities continue. “The Tatmadaw is an unreconstructed, unrepentant institution that is abusive to its core,” said David Mathieson, an independent analyst in Yangon, Myanmar’s largest city. The violent expulsion of the Rohingya from Rakhine has been condemned as ethnic cleansing by the United States and the United Nations. Human rights advocates have called for the International Criminal Court at The Hague to investigate the Tatmadaw for crimes against humanity. The military and the government have blocked independent investigations and kept neutral observers from visiting the area, even as the Tatmadaw’s commander in chief, Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, denied that the army committed atrocities against the Rohingya. But there are signs that the military is feeling at least some pressure. General Min Aung Hlaing acknowledged this month that four members of the security forces shot 10 Rohingya men whose bodies were found in a mass grave. Two officials who oversaw the security forces in Rakhine, Maj. Gen. Maung Maung Soe, head of the Tatmadaw’s western command, and Brig. Gen. Thura San Lwin, the border guard commander there, were removed from their positions in recent months without explanation. Washington imposed sanctions on General Maung Maung Soe in December, freezing any assets he might have in the United States. It is unclear, however, whether the penalties will affect him, and so far, he is the only Burmese official the United States has sanctioned over the Rohingya expulsion. The Tatmadaw is proud of its history, which it glorifies with a colossal museum near Naypyidaw, the capital. One exhibit recreates the setting of the blood oath ceremony and displays what are said to be the bowl and syringe used by the Thirty Comrades. The comrades named their militia the Burma Independence Army and gave command to their leader, Aung San, who is regarded as the father of the country (and was the father of Myanmar’s current civilian leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi). The Thirty Comrades went to Japan for military training and fought against Britain during most of World War II, but they switched sides after it became clear the British would win. Aung San became premier of the British colony but was assassinated in 1947, when Aung San Suu Kyi was 2 years old. Burma gained independence the following year. Led by one of the comrades, Gen. Ne Win, the Tatmadaw seized power from a civilian government in 1962. After pro-democracy protests erupted in 1988, he was ousted by other generals. The Tatmadaw killed an estimated 3,000 protesters but maintained control of the government. For nearly half a century, the military government kept the country isolated. It imprisoned political opponents for years, intermittently closed universities and denied the population access to the internet. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who led the opposition and received the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, spent 15 years under house arrest. There was no attempt to create a cult of personality around its leaders, but the Tatmadaw became the country’s only viable institution, with separate schools and hospitals, its own judicial system and a vast network of businesses. “The military is a state within the state,” said U Ye Myo Hein, executive director of the Tagaung Institute of Political Studies, an independent policy center in Yangon. The Tatmadaw academy’s motto is “The triumphant elite of the future.” Triumphant or not, the generals took a nation that was one of the wealthiest in Southeast Asia and, over six decades, transformed it into one of the poorest. By 2010, they had little choice but to open the country to the outside world, seek foreign investment and begin relinquishing control over the economy. But the new Constitution they imposed includes many safeguards for the military. For one, it grants immunity to the Tatmadaw for crimes committed before the government handover in 2011. The military also retains sole authority to investigate itself, and military courts have jurisdiction over its personnel. “Military impunity severely undermines the rule of law in Myanmar,” said Sean Bain, a legal adviser with the International Commission of Jurists in Yangon. In its latest campaign against the Rohingya Muslims in northern Rakhine State, which has no notable resources to extract, there still has been a tangible gain for the military: a nationalist victory for a force that casts itself as the champion of the country’s ethnic Bamar Buddhist majority. The Tatmadaw’s ranks are dominated by the same Bamar ethnic group that makes up about two-thirds of Myanmar’s population, and the force has kept Bamar nationalism as its central value. The army’s constant warfare with ethnic minorities has also given it a business advantage. The mountainous periphery of the country that is home to most of the non-Bamar people is where many valuable resources are found, including jade, gems and timber. Soon after independence, the military began fighting other ethnic groups that sought autonomy, pushing them further into the periphery. Over the years, the Tatmadaw has battled dozens of rebel armies, often several at a time, across an ever-changing landscape of alliances, military-sponsored militias and cease-fires. It uses a brutal anti-insurgency strategy called the “Four Cuts,” suppressing entire civilian populations to deny rebels support. The torching of villages, rape and mass killing that have been features of the Rohingya campaign have been central tactics in other fights, as well. Since the quasi-civilian government took office in 2011, rebel groups had been reporting about 10 armed clashes with the Tatmadaw a month. But despite efforts by civilian leaders to secure peace, the number of clashes rose sharply last year. At the moment, the Tatmadaw is battling four ethnic groups. Fighting has intensified in recent weeks in regions controlled by the Kachin and the Shan. On Friday, four people were reported killed when the Tatmadaw air force bombed a village in Kachin state. The United Nations estimates that more than 340,000 people uprooted by years of conflict live in camps in Myanmar and Thailand, in addition to the 737,000 Rohingya who fled to Bangladesh over the past 15 months. The perpetual conflict creates a state of limbo in which the Tatmadaw can operate freely. In some areas, the military has seized territory that holds vast resources. In others, where it has negotiated cease-fires, it has struck deals with local groups. With cease-fires, as opposed to peace agreements, it can argue that a military presence is still justified, and maintain firm control. Kevin Woods, a visiting scholar at the East-West Center in Honolulu, calls the Tatmadaw’s approach “cease-fire capitalism.” The military owns two large, secretive conglomerates. A 2015 report by Global Witness, a London-based anticorruption organization, found that the military, its cronies and major drug lords controlled tens of billions of dollars from the jade trade in war-torn northern Kachin State. The group said it could be “the biggest natural resource heist in modern history.” Other Tatmadaw enterprises in war-ravaged regions include extracting rubies, gold, copper and timber. Ethnic groups say the military has seized land for agribusiness and for hydroelectric dams, which produce electricity sold to neighboring China. Standoffs between the military and well-armed ethnic groups have created a lawless territory along the Chinese border that has become one of the world’s most lucrative drug-producing regions. Billions of dollars’ worth of heroin and, increasingly, methamphetamine are produced there and smuggled out via roads and ports under Myanmar’s control. “The army doesn’t want peace,” said U Win Htein, a longtime adviser to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who served 18 years in the army and spent 20 years in prison for opposing the government. He noted that in 2013, then-President Thein Sein, a former general who became the new era’s first civilian leader, directed General Min Aung Hlaing to halt military offensives against ethnic groups, to no avail. “Thein Sein ordered the army to stop, but they didn’t stop,” he said. “The army is independent and no one can influence them. They don’t listen to anybody.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/world/asia/myanmar-military-ethnic-cleansing.html (c) 2018 The New York Times

On Holocaust Memorial Day we commemorate all those who died because of the Nazi obsession with creating a pure and perfect mighty Aryan master-race: the Jews, Roma Gypsies, Disabled, Gays and any groups and individuals who the Nazis perceived as a political threat to this master-race. Particularly, the Nazis considered two ethnic groups, the Roma and the Jews, as so dangerous that they did not have any right to life. Every Jew and Gypsy alive today in Europe is a survivor of the Nazi intention to totally ethnically cleanse them out of Europe, which the Nazis considered as their rightful empire, their previous empire in Africa having been stolen from them by the Treaty of Versailles. Whereas the mighty ‘master-race’ never got off the ground, both the Roma and Jews survived through their greater adaptability, developed through centuries of persecution. While we can also celebrate this survival, it was at the cost of massive trauma still felt to some extent by the subsequent generations. Commemoration Isn’t Enough – Genocide Continues Annual commemoration events are necessary, but not sufficient as genocide continues. Denial of the Ottoman (Armenian) Genocide in WWI made WWII almost inevitable, and several major genocides have been allowed to follow their course since the Nazi Holocaust. Take Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan and the current situation in Myanmar if you need proof. Learning the lessons of the Holocaust will not come to fruition without action – action towards containing the hatred that leads to conflicts, wars and finally genocide. Only when enough people are totally determined to prevent it, will genocide be stopped – and it can be stopped if enough people develop the courage to care and the will to act. Making ‘Never Again’ A Reality “Never Again” is unlikely to be achieved in our lifetime but it is we who need to make an effective input towards making it happen. Each and every one of us can do something. It is essential to learn to contain our own violent impulses so that we can talk and negotiate instead of exacerbating and increasing the violence of others. Perhaps the most poisonous factor is the toleration and cover-up of denial. Denial opens the door for others to commit crimes against humanity, as we clearly see others getting away with it. We need to enthuse and stimulate curiosity and an insistence to expose the truth. We live with so much denial that many people can no longer distinguish between misinformation, disinformation (fake news) and truth. Denial has become so embedded in the infrastructure of our community that it feels like the norm and we don’t question it. Critical thinking is not something just for the school curriculum – it has to be for adults too. We need much more thinking in groups and think tanks, creating initiatives to hone our capabilities until potentially positive projects, such as the United Nations Association and Responsibility to Protect, emerge. Only when more people join these movements and start to take their responsibilities seriously, will we be well on the road towards eventually containing hatred and stopping genocide. https://rightsinfo.org/why-remembering-the-holocaust-isnt-enough/ (c) 2018 Rights Info

Myanmar’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi is “isolated” and living in a “bubble”, says US diplomat and politician Bill Richardson, who just this past week resigned from an international panel advising her government on the Rohingya refugee crisis. The former New Mexico governor said Ms Suu Kyi, whom he called a long-time friend, had developed a “siege mentality” in her position as Myanmar’s civilian leader, but added that Western governments should continue to engage with her. “The relationship with the West, with human rights groups, with the United Nations, with the international media is terrible,” he told Reuters. “And I think Aung San Suu Kyi has brought this upon herself, the constant disparagement of the international community, which I think can be helpful to her ... She seems isolated. She doesn’t travel much into the country. I think she’s developed a classic bubble.” While on a visit to Myanmar, Mr Richardson suddenly resigned from the advisory board, calling it a “whitewash and a cheerleading operation” for Ms Suu Kyi. Ms Suu Kyi’s office said on Thursday that her government had asked Mr Richardson to step down and accused him of pursuing “his own agenda”. US and UN officials have described actions carried out by Myanmar’s military against the stateless Rohingya as “ethnic cleansing”. The government in mostly Buddhist Burma views the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. “I think the Myanmar military is to blame a lot and the only person that can turn them around, I believe, is Aung San Suu Kyi, and she should start doing that,” Mr Richardson said. Mr Richardson served as a US ambassador to the UN under former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s. Around 688,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled from Rakhine to Bangladesh in recent months to escape an army crackdown. Though Ms Suu Kyi – once regarded as a democracy icon - is the de facto head of Myanmar’s civilian government, she is constitutionally limited in her control of the country and the military is in charge of the operations in Rakhine. Still, she has faced widespread international criticism for not speaking out in defence of the Rohingya and for expressing doubts about allegations of human rights abuses. Mr Richardson said it was important for Western governments, the United Nations and Ms Suu Kyi to enter into a new dialogue “to try to help each other, not to keep fighting each other” before any thoughts of new sanctions on Myanmar. “What we don’t want is to have Aung San Suu Kyi just listen to ASEAN countries, China or Russia,” he added. “They need engagement with the West. We’re all former friends. She needs to change, and perhaps the West needs to give her another chance and not impose sanctions.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/myanmar-aung-san-suu-kyi-bill-richardson-us-diplomat-burma-rohingya-rakhine-latest-a8181251.html (c) 2018 The Independant

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns the latest blow to investigative journalism in Russia, the closure of the news website Russiangate, announced by its editor on the 24 of January, a day after it published the findings of its investigation into the assets of the head of the Federal Security Service (FSB). Russiangate’s fate was sealed in less than 24 hours. On the evening of 23 January, it reported that FSB director Alexander Bortnikov had failed to declare some of his real estate assets. A few hours later, access was blocked throughout the country without any prior warning or explanation from the telecommunications agency Roskomnadzor, editor Alexandrina Yelagina said. On the 24 of January, access to the website was unblocked but the offending article about Bortnikov had been removed. A few hours later, Yelagina announced that the website’s investors had decided to withdraw their funding and that it would therefore be closed. “Russiangate’s closure is a flagrant and unacceptable act of censorship,” said Johann Bihr, the head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk. “As investigative reporting has virtually disappeared from the Russian media, this latest blow is a warning to the few news organizations that, despite everything, still investigate corruption and other stories in the public interest.” In various interviews, Yelagina said there had been an informal agreement with the owners that Russiangate would not to tackle three sensitive subjects, President Vladimir Putin, his closest associates and the Russian Orthodox Church. As the FSB director was deemed to be close to Putin, the agreement had been broken and this was the grounds for closing the site, she said. The offending article has been re-posted on the publishing platform Telegraph. Created in 2016, Russiangate specialized in investigating suspected corruption, publishing the results of its research into the assets of senior Russian officials and their relatives. Its targets included Valentina Matvienko, the speaker of the upper house of the Russian parliament, and presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Russia is ranked 148th out of 180 countries in RSF's 2017 World Press Freedom Index. https://rsf.org/en/news/russian-website-closed-after-investigating-security-chiefs-assets (c) 2018 Reporters Without Borders

Aung San Suu Kyi remains Myanmar’s best hope for change, veteran U.S. mediator Bill Richardson said on Friday, days after he got into a fight with the Nobel laureate and quit an international panel advising her government on the Rohingya crisis. Richardson said Suu Kyi, whom he described as a long-time friend, had developed a “siege mentality” in her position as Myanmar’s State Counsellor, the country’s civilian leader, but added that Western governments should continue to engage with her. “The relationship with the West, with human rights groups, with the United Nations, with the international media is terrible,” he told Reuters by phone from New Mexico on Friday. “And I think Aung San Suu Kyi has brought this upon herself, the constant disparagement of the international community, which I think can be helpful to her ... She seems isolated. She doesn’t travel much into the country. I think she’s developed a classic bubble.” Richardson said he resigned from the advisory board on Wednesday, during its first visit to troubled Rakhine State, saying it was conducting a “whitewash”. Suu Kyi’s office said on Thursday her government had asked Richardson to step down and accused him of pursuing “his own agenda”. Suu Kyi’s government said on Friday it did not want discuss the details of the exchange between Suu Kyi and Richardson any further. Around 688,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled from Rakhine to Bangladesh in recent months to escape an army crackdown following insurgent attacks on security forces. “I think the Myanmar military is to blame a lot and the only person that can turn them around, I believe, is Aung San Suu Kyi, and she should start doing that,” said Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton who has also worked as a mediator with North Korea. Richardson said he had informed the U.S. ambassador in Yangon and the State Department of his intention to resign but had not sought their guidance. Richardson said that before his trip to Myanmar, he spoke to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who visited the country in November. “He called me and gave me a briefing on his visit and that was all,” he told Reuters in a separate television interview. A State Department spokesman said he could not immediately confirm details of Richardson’s contacts. A statement on Thursday from the nine remaining members of the advisory board said they met this week “with open minds” and rejected Richardson’s criticism that he feared the panel would be used as “a cheerleading squad”. Richardson said Suu Kyi’s response at a Monday night dinner was “furious” when he brought up the case of two Reuters reporters, who were arrested on Dec. 12 on suspicion of violating Myanmar’s Official Secrets Act. “She was very angry with me when I raised releasing the journalists, giving them a fair trial,” he said. “She was upset when I said there should be an investigation of the mass-graves issue, that they had to increase their international support for the treatment of the Rohingyas, the terrible refugee crisis. She exploded. She was very unhappy, and it shows that she didn’t want to hear frank advice.” Her office said it would not be commenting further on the exchange. “We already published a statement and also the advisory board published a statement. The judge will decide whether the journalists committed the crime or not. It is Contempt of Court. Even in America, they wouldn’t involve themselves in a case while the case is ongoing in a court hearing,” said Zaw Htay, Suu Kyi’s spokesman. Reporters Wa Lone, 31, and Kyaw Soe Oo, 27, had worked on Reuters coverage of the crisis in Rakhine. Richardson said it was important for Western governments, the United Nations and Suu Kyi to enter into a new dialogue “to try to help each other, not to keep fighting each other” before any thoughts of new sanctions on Myanmar. “What we don’t want is to have Aung San Suu Kyi just listen to ASEAN countries, China or Russia. They need engagement with the West. We’re all former friends. She needs to change, and perhaps the West needs to give her another chance and not impose sanctions.” Myanmar’s armed forces have been accused by Rohingya witnesses and human rights activists of carrying out killings, rapes and arson in Rakhine in a campaign senior officials in the United Nations and United States have described as ethnic cleansing. Myanmar rejects that label and has denied nearly all the allegations. Bangladesh and Myanmar agreed earlier this month to complete the voluntary repatriation of all the refugees. The remaining members of the advisory board on Wednesday toured temporary camps the government has set up for returnees. Richardson said he did not believe conditions were yet right for the repatriation process to begin. “I believe that the Myanmar government has emphasised speed instead of systems,” he said. “There’s been too much emphasis on quick results rather than assuring that safety is guaranteed.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-richardson/despite-clash-richardson-says-suu-kyi-remains-myanmars-best-hope-idUSKBN1FF2LH?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29&&rpc=401 (c) 2018 Reuters

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said Friday that he told Myanmar's embattled leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, to ignore the complaints of human rights activists during a recent meeting in India. Speaking to a business forum in New Delhi, the strongman said he pitied Suu Kyi, who has been criticized in recent months over accusations her government is deliberately killing minority Rohingya Muslims. "She's been complaining that 'We are talking about our country, the interest of our country, our own country,' and I said, 'Don't mind the human rights (activists), they are a noisy bunch actually,' " Duterte told the forum. Both Southeast Asian leaders were in New Delhi on Thursday for the ASEAN-India summit, followed by a parade Friday morning in honor of India's Republic Day. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, right, welcomes the Philippine strongman this week in New Delhi. Duterte's administration has also faced condemnation by human rights organizations and the United Nations over its brutal crackdown on illegal drugs in the Philippines. At least 3,400 alleged drug dealers and users have been killed since the campaign began in June 2016 when Duterte took power, according to Philippine government data. The Philippine leader said Friday the United Nations served "no purpose at all" for mankind. "It hasn't prevented any war, it hasn't prevented any massacre. And here I am trying to protect my country," he said. Duterte did not say when exactly he had given his advice to Suu Kyi nor how she had reacted. His comments come a day after Bill Richardson, a former US ambassador to the United Nations, criticized Suu Kyi, saying she lacked "moral leadership." Richardson was on the board tasked with implementing recommendations made by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's commission into Rakhine state, where Myanmar's Rohingya minority live. But Richardson resigned Thursday, saying the commission was a "cheerleading squad for government policy." Since August, more than 688,000 Rohingya have fled across the border of Myanmar into Bangladesh, bringing with them stories of killings, rape and destruction at the hands of the country's military, according to the International Organization for Migration. Both the United Nations and United States have accused the Myanmar government of committing "ethnic cleansing." Suu Kyi and her government have repeatedly and strongly denied reports they are purposely killing Rohingya Muslims inside Rakhine state. http://us.cnn.com/2018/01/26/asia/duterte-aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-intl/index.html (c) 2018 CNN

To mark the publication of the Report The Social Roots of Jihadist Violence in Burkina Faso’s North on 12 October 2017, West Africa Analyst Cynthia Ohayon and Project Director Rinaldo Depagne presented their conclusions and recommendations in Ouagadougou to the various protagonists. Cynthia has travelled regularly to Burkina Faso over the past three years; Rinaldo previously lived and worked in the country for more than seven years. Their aim with the report was to persuade political decision-makers and other influential figures to address the root causes of the social crisis in northern Burkina Faso, and to avoid rushing into single-track counter-terrorism strategy at a time when violence is spreading in the north of the country. Long spared by the Sahel’s armed groups, Burkina Faso – and particularly its northern region – has faced increasing insecurity since 2015. Crisis Group’s many interviews on the ground show that the crisis stems more from social unrest than from the growth of an Islamic movement. On the day of the report’s publication, Crisis Group held a launch event at a hotel in the capital, organised jointly with Luxembourg’s delegation in Ouagadougou. The number of attendees far exceeded our expectations. Present were representatives from several ministries, Burkinabè army officers, former ministers, the emir of Djibo, traditional Fulani chiefs, diplomats, academics and civil society activists. At the event a young man from the north detailed the difficulties faced by his village; a traditional chief reminded those present that rebel fighters were also citizens of Burkina Faso who felt abandoned by an elite fixated upon events in the capital. “I came here thinking that the attacks were terrorism-related. After listening to you today, I now realise courage is needed to meet society’s expectations”, one gendarmerie captain said. “We’ve learned a lot today”, concluded a former minister, in recognition of Crisis Group’s role. The Crisis Group team then presented the report, its conclusions and recommendations, to the Quranic teachers with whom Cynthia had met five months earlier. Lively discussion quickly followed. The marabouts recounted how the situation in the north had worsened. Basing her comments on the report, Cynthia summarised the points of view of all parties to the conflict. These moments – when various actors feel themselves understood, while listening to the perspectives of others – are at the core of Crisis Group’s advocacy work. On these foundations future solutions can be built. Crisis Group prides itself on engaging all actors involved in a crisis, as well as others who have something to bring to the table. Our team met with Tanguy Denieul, director of the French Development Agency (AFD), to discuss our conclusion that the crisis is rooted in a sense of abandonment, as demonstrated by the north’s severe underdevelopment. The meeting was focused on the sustainability of financing development in the north, the training of mayors and the supply of electricity to the principal towns. Brigadier-General Oumarou Sadou, chief of general staff of the armed forces, granted an audience to Crisis Group in the presence of three of his officers. We presented our report and discussed the north’s problems, including an ossified and unequal social order and a lack of engagement by the state. The soldiers asked a number of questions about Mali, regarding the border situation, civilian opinions of the security forces, response times and military abuses. It was a constructive exchange, made possible by mutual trust built up over several previous meetings. The Burkina officers’ priority is to prevent the jihadist violence in Mali from spreading any further into Burkina. Rinaldo Depagne noted down lessons from this meeting to apply to his work on stability in the Sahel and his advocacy for a regional force. The discussion ended with a Burkina proverb: “If your neighbour’s wall has fallen down and your property is in danger, you should help him rebuild it”. Crisis Group’s credibility in Ouagadougou was already high thanks to its July 2013 report, Burkina Faso: With or Without Compaoré, Times of Uncertainty. This report’s analysis of Compaoré’s vulnerability as a ruler proved prescient, as the president was ousted the following year after a popular uprising. Crisis Group puts great store in maintaining an open and respectful relationship with each of its interlocutors. One of the significant meetings during Cynthia’s and Rinaldo’s trip was with Bénéwendé Sankara, the first vice president of the National Assembly, to discuss how focusing on politics in the capital can distract the government from the task of developing national policy. Only policies that apply nationwide can defuse tensions in the country. Our team also visited historian Hamidou Diallo at his university office in Ouagadougou. Diallo, who has frequently debated his ideas with Crisis Group over the years, shared his concerns. After exchanging views, we left with new avenues to explore and an agreement to meet again soon. Successful advocacy often depends on our analysts’ flexibility in seizing opportunities. When Cynthia found out that Fulani representatives from Burkina, Mali and Niger were meeting that day in a downtown hotel, she asked if she could join them. The Fulanis from three countries in the region were ready to listen. Some of them were already familiar with Crisis Group’s work, noting its quality and respecting our neutrality. The imam Ilboudo from the Islamic Education, Research and Study Centre (CERFI), a man highly respected in Ouagadougou’s Muslim community, is a major player in Crisis Group’s advocacy work. Sipping hot tea under a mango tree by the mosque, the imam shared with our team his reactions to their presentation of the report. Three months after its publication in French and English, the report The Social Roots of Jihadist Violence in Burkina Faso’s North has already been read more than 21,000 times. The second phase of Crisis Group’s work is to help the actors understand their rivals’ viewpoints and to reflect on the issues at stake. This is the most delicate stage of the proceedings. Rinaldo Depagne and his team at the West Africa program will keep the report in circulation among the various protagonists on the ground. By continuing to engage in dialogue, they will formulate new approaches as well as understand future obstacles, so as to halt the downward spiral of a deadly crisis. The meetings held around this new publication were also a point of departure for our West Africa team. Our analysts’ notebooks were already filled with ideas collected on the ground to prepare for our next report on the deployment of a G5 Sahel joint force. https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/west-africa/burkina-faso/burkina-faso-presenter-les-conclusions-dun-rapport-aux-protagonistes (c) 2018 International Crisis Group

One of Aung San Suu Kyi's closest allies has resigned from an international advisory board calling it a "cheerleading squad for government policy" that's failing to address the Rohingya crisis. In a scathing statement released Thursday, Bill Richardson, the former US ambassador to the UN, accused Suu Kyi -- Myanmar's de facto leader, who he's known for decades -- of lacking "moral leadership." "It appears that the Board is likely to become a cheerleading squad for government policy as opposed to proposing genuine policy changes that are desperately needed to assure peace, stability and development in Rakhine State," Richardson said. As of August last year, more than 688,000 Rohingya have been forced to flee their homes in northern Rakine State amid widespread reports of military-backed mass rape, murder and the burning down of entire villages. The UN and the US have labeled the violence against the mainly Muslim Rohingya as "ethnic cleansing." Richardson said that after three days of advisory board meetings it had "become clear that I cannot in good conscience serve in this role." The advisory board was intended to help the government implement the recommendations of a fact-finding commission helmed by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. "In the advisory board's initial meeting with (Suu Kyi), I was taken aback by the vigor with which the media, the United Nations, human rights groups, and in general the international community were disparaged." "While it is important to recognize that the military still wields significant power and that they are primarily to blame for the recent exodus of refugees in the wake of (Rohingya militant group) ARSA attacks, the absence of (Suu Kyi's) moral leadership on this critical issue is of great concern." Myanmar government spokesman Zaw Htay told CNN "we are very sorry about Mr Richardson's resignation," and denied accusations Suu Kyi believes there is a concerted international effort against Myanmar. "That is not true," said Htay. 'Furious' response The resignation of Richardson will come as a blow to both the reputation of the international panel and Suu Kyi herself. The former democracy fighter and Nobel Peace Prize laureate has come in for intense criticism since the Rohingya crisis intensified last year, but has retained many defenders, particularly in Washington, where she is seen as a vital part of the country's shift to democracy and tilt towards the US and away from China. During Suu Kyi's years-long house arrest under the junta, Richardson was one of the first westerners to visit her, and had maintained a friendship with her for "decades," he said. A major break for the pair appears to have been the detention of two Reuters journalists who were investigating allegations of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine. They are currently facing up to 14 years in prison. "I was extremely upset at (Suu Kyi's) reaction to my request that she address the situation of the two Reuters journalists both swiftly and fairly," Richardson said, a request he said sparked a "furious" response from Suu Kyi. Zaw Htay acknowledged Richardson raised the journalists' case in a meeting, but said it "was not relevant to the agenda of the meeting." "The meeting was only about the issue in Rakhine State," he said. "(Suu Kyi) told Mr Richardson to keep to the correct agenda." 'Lack of a formal mandate' The advisory commission's final report was submitted on August 23 last year, prior to the current refugee crisis. While the commission's report did not go so far as current UN officials, who have said the situation in Myanmar represents a "textbook case of ethnic cleansing," it did criticize the military and call on the government to take urgent concerted action. Myanmar officials have pointed to the report as evidence they are being transparent in their handling of the situation in Rakhine, but in a widely-publicized speech on the issue, Suu Kyi directly contradicted several of Annan's findings, and few of the recommendations have yet been implemented. Richardson criticized the chairman of the advisory board, former Thai deputy prime minister Surakiart Sathirathai, for not being "genuinely committed" to implementing the Annan commission's findings. "He parroted the dangerous and untrue notion that international NGOs employ radicals and that humanitarian agencies are providing material support to ARSA," said Richardson. "The advisory board's lack of a formal mandate and Surakiart's general desire to avoid the real issues at the risk of confronting our Myanmar hosts, led to an agenda devoid of any meaningful engagement." Neither Surakiart nor any other members of the advisory board could be immediately reached for comment. http://us.cnn.com/2018/01/24/asia/myanmar-bill-richardson-rohingya-intl/index.html (c) 2018 CNN

A Turkish attack on the Kurdish “People’s Protection Units” (YPG), the Syrian affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), was long expected. For most observers, the question was not if, but when, where, and under what circumstances. Now we have the answers: seizing on an inflammatory (and subsequently amended) U.S. statement concerning Washington’s cooperation with the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Turkey has launched an aerial and ground offensive against the YPG-held enclave of Afrin in north-west Syria. The battle is likely to prove indecisive and costly for both sides. It is already a tremendous headache for Washington, their mutual ally, and putting huge strain on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-member Turkey’s relations with the U.S. Unless all involved adjust their strategies, including a return to a broader peace process in the PKK’s decades-old insurgency in Turkey, it may also prove a sign of worse to come. Ankara-Washington Tensions Boil over It has long been clear that the conclusion of major U.S.-backed offensives against the Islamic State (ISIS) would prove a sensitive moment in northern Syria. Ankara, furious since 2015 that U.S. backing has empowered the YPG as the military backbone of the SDF even as the PKK wages active insurgency in Turkey, hoped that its NATO ally would wind down support for the SDF following the capture of ISIS strongholds. Washington appears to have decided to do quite the opposite: to stay and continue to invest in its partners on the ground. The U.S. views the “stabilisation” of areas captured from ISIS as essential to prevent jihadist resurgence; does not want to abandon a reliable ally in the fight against ISIS to regime assault; and hopes to leverage its military presence to promote a political transition in Damascus and contain Iranian influence. The YPG’s coherent internal structures, efficient decision-making and capable performance make it the U.S.’ only plausible local counterpart for maintaining security and delivering governance. There is little reason to believe that the SDF and local bodies could hold up without it. The U.S. made its intentions public on 11 January 2018 in a testimony by Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield, and in Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s speech six days later. It was this statement of policy, rather than the poorly-conceived 13 January U.S. statement about building “border security forces”, that heightened Turkey’s frustration. Ankara strongly opposes continued U.S. support for the YPG, which it sees as enabling the PKK to consolidate and legitimise its affiliate’s de facto rule along a large part of its southern border, bestowing diplomatic clout and respectability on the mother organisation in the process. Tough Fight Ahead In response, Ankara has launched its most significant action yet against the YPG, in the one place it can do so without directly confronting its NATO ally: Afrin. The U.S. has no military presence in this geographically isolated YPG-held canton in north-west Syria, which Washington has always described as outside the framework of its counter-ISIS efforts. Unprotected by the U.S. security umbrella in northern Syria, Afrin is an easier target for Turkey than SDF-held territory to the east. It is Moscow, not Washington, that had previously provided some degree of implicit protection for the area. Russia dominates the airspace over that part of Syria, and has maintained a small military presence in Afrin. Its approval (or at least acquiescence) was widely perceived as a prerequisite for any major Turkish operation there. Indeed, Turkish intelligence head Hakan Fidan and Chief of the General Staff Hulusi Akar visited Moscow immediately prior to the offensive. After the visit, Russia acknowledged Turkey’s security concerns, blamed the crisis on U.S. “unilateral action” (an apparent reference to the policy announced by Tillerson), and moved its troops in Afrin out of harm’s way. For now, this decision has severely damaged its previously cordial relations with the YPG but for Moscow that apparently was a small price to pay: proving the U.S.’ unreliability and, by contrast, Russia’s ability to control events on the ground in tandem with Turkey, was of greater value. Militarily, however, Afrin presents particularly challenging terrain for Turkey. The YPG has both military control and deep local roots. Unlike most of the SDF-held north east, Afrin is wooded, partially mountainous and densely populated. And while the YPG is surrounded by rival forces – Turkey to the west and north, Turkey-backed rebels to the east, the Syrian regime to the south east and the jihadists of Hei’at Tahrir al-Sham to the south – a road connects Afrin to SDF-held territory in the north east via regime-held areas; the YPG may be able to negotiate with Damascus use of that road to transport reinforcements. Turkey and its rebel allies, who at times struggled to gain ground during their “Euphrates Shield” offensive against ISIS in late 2016 and early 2017, are likely to find the going much tougher against the better-trained, better-led YPG. Even if they seize the enclave, it remains unclear how Ankara hopes to secure an area inhabited by a hostile population and with a topography suitable for guerrilla warfare. More likely, Turkey will end up in a prolonged fight against a potent, deeply-motivated insurgency. Things could get especially messy if Turkey expands operations to Manbij, a city at the western edge of the SDF’s north-eastern territory, which President Erdoğan has suggested could be Ankara’s next target. Manbij is sensitive, disputed territory. The U.S. helped the SDF seize it from ISIS in 2016, and assured Turkey that the YPG would withdraw from the city and adjacent areas west of the Euphrates River following their capture. In practice, however, the YPG has retained control there via local partners. Washington, aware that its pledge was not fully implemented, has on some occasions deployed its own forces to the area to deter Turkish attack. If Ankara decides to extend its current offensive there, it will broaden its exposure to YPG insurgency and risk far deeper damage to its relationship with Washington, as U.S. and Turkish forces could collide. A Better Way Forward The Afrin offensive may boost temporarily the Turkish leadership at home. But it entails major risks and is unlikely to significantly weaken the YPG overall. The attack may even encourage the PKK to revert to bombings in Turkish cities – a tactic the organisation has shied away from over the past year (likely due in part to Washington’s exhortations, delivered via the YPG). This fight is unlikely to end well for anyone, and it highlights the urgency of addressing the Turkey-PKK/YPG conflict – and the associated contradictions of U.S. policy – more constructively. Ankara has largely routed the PKK in the three years of fighting in south-eastern Turkey that have followed the breakdown of peace efforts in 2015. However, it did so at great human cost. The PKK is still confident in its northern Iraq headquarters, and Turkey faces much bleaker prospects – and formidable geopolitical constraints – inside Syria. Turkey can mount damaging attacks against and destabilise YPG-held areas, but it has no discernible path to military victory there. For its part, the PKK has lost “a generation” of fighters (as one of its cadres told Crisis Group) in combat that has arguably strengthened its adversaries politically. It has no reason to expect better results from future insurgent campaigns in Turkey. It can take heart in the continued success of its Syrian affiliate, which has brighter political and military prospects – but, as Crisis Group reported in May 2017, that depends on it finding sustainable means of averting prolonged Turkish attack. Rather than costly pursuits of quixotic objectives where their respective hands are weaker, Turkey and the PKK/YPG would be better served by a quid pro quo: PKK military concessions in Turkey (eg, an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of arms from Turkish soil) in exchange for Ankara’s returning to the peace process and acquiescence to continued YPG control within much of northern Syria. The obstacles are formidable, but not insurmountable. Even as U.S. officials shuttle between their warring allies in an attempt to contain the fighting, they should begin exploring the potential for an eventual deal in which the PKK makes concessions on one side of the border in exchange for a compromise from Turkey on the other. Without such an understanding, Washington’s new approach to Syria will end up harming both its allies whose cooperation it needs if it is to play a role in settling Syria’s war. https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/no-winners-turkeys-new-offensive-syria?utm_source=Sign+Up+to+Crisis+Group%27s+Email+Updates&utm_campaign=0f71e208f7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1dab8c11ea-0f71e208f7-359534617 (c) 2018 International Crisisi Group

Rohingya refugee Mohammed* says he does not want to stay in Bangladesh for long, but is clear about the guarantees that he needs before he will consider taking his family back to their native Myanmar. “We will return to Myanmar, but only when we have our safety guaranteed, and our rights recognized, just like other ethnic groups there,” he says. The soft-spoken 43-year-old is among 655,000 refugees who have fled to Bangladesh since violence erupted in the Maungdaw area of northern Rakhine state five months ago and reported that troops and mobs attacked and killed residents and torched their villages. As talks intensify over the prospect of repatriation, refugees in what has become the world’s largest refugee settlement have held a number of demonstrations in the past week. Their message is clear: There can be no returns without the questions of citizenship, rights and restitution being addressed. “We have showed our voice. They know our views,” says Mohammed, one of the protest organizers. “We have a petition with 20,000 signatures with our demands on repatriation that we have sent to the authorities.” Discussions on the modalities of repatriation have been taking place between the governments of Bangladesh and Myanmar, even as new arrivals continue to flow into Bangladesh, though at a much slower pace than in the early weeks of the crisis. UNHCR, which is not party to the bilateral arrangements, has cautioned that any decision to return should be based on the refugees’ informed and voluntary choice. While at this time the UN Refugee Agency does does not have access to any areas of return, it believes that conditions in Rakhine state are not yet conducive to the safe and sustainable return of refugees. The discussions – to which refugees are not party – have caused enormous anxiety among the refugees who have not been consulted nor received any information about the plan. Some are strongly opposed to return. “How can we go back? It’s like sending us back to be killed there,” says mother-of-four, Fatima,* who fled from Andang village in Maungdaw. Her voice rising with passion, she continues: “It is better to be killed. If we die here in Bangladesh, at least we can have a proper religious burial – we cannot do that back home.” Others cite lessons from history. Abdullah,* 52, explains how we was forced to flee his homeland into Bangladesh three times – the first time, in 1978, as a young boy, then again in 1991. “I spent three years here, but I agreed to go back to Myanmar voluntarily in 1993. I was worried about my property and farm,” he recalled, speaking at a small bamboo shelter in the overcrowded Kutupalong camp. However, the root causes that forced him to flee were not resolved: “My hopes of a better life faded after two years when the situation worsened. We saw all kinds of torture, forced labour and military operations. They took our land, our crops, our cattle. We were threatened and beaten.” Regretting his previous decision to return, Abdullah is adamant that he will only consider returning home this time if fundamental changes are happening. These include gaining citizenship rights and having their legal status resolved; receiving assurances that their safety and protection will be guaranteed on return, with many calling for the presence of UNHCR – and even UN peacekeepers – to monitor the situation and provide safeguards. They also want help to rebuild their homes, regain their land, and access to basic services. Selling vegetables from a makeshift stall on the roadside, 22 year-old Nurul,* from Mijjali Para in Maungdaw, is equally clear about what he wants. “We fled to save our lives. My house was burned,” he explains. “If I go back, I want my Rohingya identity to be recognized the way it is for any other ethnic group. I want freedom of movement and to play an active part in daily life, I want access to all services like a normal citizen of Myanmar,” he said.UNHCR has advocated for unhindered humanitarian access to areas of return in Myanmar in order to assess the situation and help with rebuilding efforts. It is also urging the authorities to promptly implement the recommendations of the Rakhine Advisory Commission, which include ensuring peace and security for all communities in Rakhine State, reducing communal divisions and seeking solutions for the citizenship status of Muslim communities. Mohammed sums it up simply: “We are human and they are human. We must have the same rights.” Your support is urgently needed to help the children, women and men refugees in Bangladesh. Please give now. http://www.unhcr.org/5a6a00b29.html (C) 2018 UNHCR

Wiper Party leader and NASA co-principal Kalonzo Musyoka on Thursday warned that the two main political formations in the country must dialogue now or risk doing it when the country is in conflict. Speaking in Kitui West Constituency, Kalonzo linked the current political impasse to perennial electoral injustice vowing that the vice must be put to an end. “I really feel pained for my country. I do not want to make any other plea. I am only a leader who feels concerned by the status quo,” said Kalonzo. The former Vice President cited the recent call for dialogue by the United Nations (UN) to Kenya’s political class as a key reason why President Uhuru Kenyatta must engage the opposition before the situation gets worse. “I don’t know why people are allergic to the truth. As it stands I can only pray that God helps Kenya,” said Kalonzo. Mr. Musyoka further blasted Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko for what he termed as blatant sabotage of the people’s right to assemble. “The constitution gives every Kenyan the right to assemble. It is very unfortunate that a governor can frustrate a public gathering by smearing human waste on a public event’s venue,” said Kalonzo. This comes after the governor on Wednesday January 24, closed Uhuru Park after the opposition coalition had indicated it will hold the swearing in of the opposition chiefs on the grounds. https://citizentv.co.ke/news/kalonzo-to-uhuru-we-must-dialogue-now-or-do-it-in-conflict-189255/ (c) 2018 Citizen

Bill Richardson, the veteran US diplomat, has resigned from an international panel on the Rohingya crisis, calling it a “whitewash” and accusing the country’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi of lacking “moral leadership”. Richardson, a former Clinton administration cabinet member, quit as the 10-member advisory board was making its first visit to Rakhine state, from where nearly 700,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled in recent months. Aung San Suu Kyi once called for a free press. Now, the dead are used for fake news “The main reason I am resigning is that this advisory board is a whitewash,” Richardson told Reuters in an interview, adding he did not want to be part of “a cheerleading squad for the government”. Richardson said he got into an argument with Suu Kyi during a meeting on Monday with other members of the board, when he brought up the case of two Reuters reporters who are on trial accused of breaching the country’s secrets act. He said Suu Kyi’s response was “furious”, saying the case of the reporters “was not part of the work of the advisory board”. The argument continued at a dinner later that evening, the former New Mexico governor said. Bill Richardson, who has resigned from Myanmar’s advisory panel on the Rohingya refugee crisis. Photograph: Thet Htoo/AP In a statement, the Myanmar government challenged Richardson’s version of events, saying the diplomat had not intended to provide advice at the meeting “but to pursue his own agenda”. “In view of the difference of opinion that developed, the government decided that his continued participation on the board would not be in the best interest of all concerned,” the statement added. Reporters Wa Lone, 31, and Kyaw Soe Oo, 27, had worked on Reuters coverage of the crisis in Rakhine, from where 688,000 Rohingya have fled an army crackdown on insurgents since late August, according to estimates by the United Nations. They were detained on 12 December after they had been invited to meet police officers over dinner in Yangon. The government has cited police as saying they were arrested for possessing secret documents relating to the security situation in Rakhine. Heather Nauert, a US state department spokeswoman, called Richardson’s decision to resign from the board and his reasons for doing so “cause for concern”, but noted he had been acting as a private citizen in joining the board and visiting Myanmar, which is also known as Burma. The advisory board was set up by Myanmar last year, to advise on enacting the findings of an earlier commission headed by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. The armed forces have been accused by Rohingya witnesses and human rights activists of carrying out killings, rapes and arson in a campaign senior officials in the UN and US have described as ethnic cleansing. Myanmar rejects that label and has denied nearly all the allegations. Richardson said he was also “taken aback by the vigour with which the media, the UN, human rights groups and in general the international community were disparaged” during the last three days of meetings the board held with Myanmar officials. “She’s not getting good advice from her team,” Richardson said of Suu Kyi, whom he said he has known since the 1980s. “I like her enormously and respect her. But she has not shown moral leadership on the Rakhine issue and the allegations made, and I regret that.” Suu Kyi’s national security adviser, Thaung Tun, told Reuters he had escorted the other board members on a trip to Rakhine on Wednesday, but that Richardson had not taken part. “He said he was unhappy about the situation but I am not sure what he was unhappy about,” he said. “This is just the initial stage, this is the start of a whole year of business so I don’t know what happened to make him feel like that.” Before Richardson quit the advisory board had 10 members, including five from overseas, chaired by former Thai deputy prime minister, Surakiart Sathirathai. Richardson, a former US ambassador to the UN and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, also had harsh words for Surakiart. The board chairman, he said, was not “genuinely committed” to implementing recommendations regarding the issues of Rohingya safety, citizenship, peace, stability and development. Surakiart was travelling with other members of the board in Rakhine and did not respond to requests for comment. Another board member, former South African Defence Minister Roelof Meyer, told Reuters the visit to Rakhine had been “very constructive”. “If anybody would say that we are just a rubber stamp or a voice on behalf of the government that would be completely untrue, unfair,” he said. Myanmar’s military said earlier this month its soldiers had taken part in the killings of 10 captured Muslim “terrorists” at the beginning of September, after Buddhist villagers had forced the captured men into a grave the villagers had dug. It was a rare acknowledgment of wrongdoing during its operations in Rakhine by the Myanmar military, which said legal action would be taken against members of the security forces who violated their rules of engagement and the villagers involved. Richardson said he has asked the board to recommend that the Myanmar government set up an independent investigation into “the mass grave issue, especially as it pertained to ... the involvement of the military”. He did not say how the board had responded. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/25/aung-san-suu-kyi-lacks-moral-leadership-us-diplomat-bill-richardson-quits-rohingya-panel (c) 2018 The Guardian