Diplomats stationed in Dhaka today laid emphasis on "safe, voluntary and dignified" return of Rohingyas from Bangladesh to Myanmar to make their return sustainable. They also laid emphasis on creating environment with necessary development in Rakhine state of Myanmar so that Rohingyas feel safe and confident to return to the country. The diplomats also assured of continuing support to Bangladesh to facilitate the repatriation process. Talking to reporters, Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka Harsh Vardhan Shringla said it is necessary to have sustainable development in Rakhine state in order to create an environment for safe and sustainable of return of Rohingyas. "It's timely briefing," he said assuring of their support to facilitate the process. British High Commissioner Alison Blake said the return should be "safe, voluntary and dignified" so that it becomes sustainable. US Ambassador in Dhaka Marcia Bernicat also laid emphasis on safe return of Rohingyas. She assured of US support to Bangladesh to complete the process. Earlier, Foreign Minister AH Mahmood Ali briefed diplomats stationed in Dhaka on Rohingya issue as Bangladesh and Myanmar are set to start repatriation process at the ground level. The Foreign Minister started briefing Western and non-Muslim countries' diplomats from 4:00pm while he is briefing diplomats from Muslim majority countries from 5:30pm at State Guest House Padma in the city. Foreign Secretary M Shahidul Haque is also attending the briefing. Earlier yesterday, Minister Ali laid emphasis on continuing international pressure on Myanmar to resolve the Rohingya crisis. "It (pressure) needs to continue until repatriation is completed." He also said the Rohingya repatriation process will not be hampered due to the upcoming national election. "Why, I don't see any reason," he said terming the progress made so far on Rohingya repatriation a big success for the government and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The foreign minister said the repatriation is an ongoing process and all people should help government take it forward successfully. On January 16, Bangladesh and Myanmar signed a document on 'Physical Arrangement' which will facilitate return of Rohingyas to their homeland from Bangladesh. The 'Physical Arrangement' stipulates that the repatriation will be completed preferably within two years from the commencement of repatriation. The United Nations has reiterated its call for voluntary repatriation of Rohingyas from Bangladesh saying Rohingyas need to feel that the situation is safe enough for them. "It's up for people to choose to go home. No one should choose for them. Any repatriation of Rohingyas back to Myanmar needs to be voluntary," said spokesman for the UN Secretary-General Stephane Dujarric in a regular briefing at the UN Headquarters. He said Rohingyas, now living in Bangladesh, need to be able to go to the homes from which they came. "I think they need to feel that the situation is safe enough." There have been demonstrations on Friday in camps by Rohingyas protesting against plans to repatriate them back into Myanmar. On the other hand, Myanmar authorities toured Maungtaw, Rakhine State on Friday and inspected the construction of houses to be used for repatriation of returnees from Bangladesh. The delegation headed by Rakhine state Chief Minister U Nyi Pu visited the Hla Phoe Khaung, Ngakhuya and Taung Pyo Letwe camps and insisted on completion of the finishing touches on buildings, medical clinics and sanitation infrastructures, according to The Global New Light of Myanmar. Foreign Minister AH Mahmood Ali on Thursday said the Rohingya problem can be solved permanently with sustainable return of Rohingyas to Myanmar. http://www.thedailystar.net/rohingya-crisis/rohingya-refugees-repatriation-to-myanmar-bangladesh-fm-foreign-minister-ah-mahmood-ali-brief-diplomats-today-1522948 (c) 2018 The Daily Star

The moment has finally arrived: the immensely destructive economic catastrophe engineered by the Omar al-Bashir’s National Islamic Front/National Congress Party regime has sparked outrage and demonstrations not seen for almost five years. But the regime remains fully in control of the police and security forces (the army in the middle ranks is another matter): will ruthless survivalism dictate that the peaceful demonstrations, reflecting massive popular discontent, nonetheless confront again the savagery we saw in September 2013, during which “shoot to kill” orders were given to quell the demonstrations that had quickly spread to many cities in Sudan? The death toll is usually cited as roughly 200 killed; but contemporaneous reports, not fully confirmed, indicated that large numbers were killed in locations outside Khartoum, were the deaths were counted. Some estimates ranged to several times the 200 cited so frequently. And of course the number of wounded and those incarcerated was much greater yet. The arrests since January 1, 2018 and the regime’s promulgation of its new budget—with massive, unsustainable increases in prices for basic commodities—now number well over 100, including a dozen international and Sudanese journalists. Newspapers cannot publish anything that covers either the outrageous 2018 budget or the protests of that budget: print news has been silenced. Social media use in Khartoum, on the other hand, has become much more sophisticated and rapid over the past five years. Video and voice and text reports have appeared almost contemporaneously with events on the ground. One development to watch for closely will be the regime’s efforts to silence people—and prevent organization by political parties—by shutting down the Internet or phone services. This happened, if briefly, in September 2013; in some ways, it is the regime’s most potent weapon to enforce silence. The question Sudanese are even now answering in their hearts and minds is a stark one: will fear of violence outweigh the outrage felt nearly universally? Or will that outrage finally overcome fear, as the urgency of regime change becomes steadily more evident? Most Sudanese now know that they can count on very little help from a feckless, expedient international community, which has a despicable stake in the regime’s survival. Fear or anger triumphant? This is a question that Sudanese must answer for themselves—and every person in Sudan must answer it for himself or herself. In such extreme circumstances, there can be no exhortation, only admiration for courage and resilience when we see it…for as long as we see it. http://sudanreeves.org/2018/01/21/sudans-fateful-moment-will-surging-protests-grow-to-become-countrywide-and-bring-down-the-regime-or-will-be-see-an-even-bloodier-repeat-of-september-2013/ (c) 2018 SUDAN Research, Analysis, and Ad

Ntabazinduna Chief Nhlanhlayamangwe Ndiweni has reiterated that Gukurahundi is a Genocide and those that wish it away and don’t want it to be discussed or solved are wasting their time and are brewing hatred in the nation. Speaking in a video interview to MIHR on the sidelines of the Gukurahundi 2018 Activity calendar launch in Bulawayo today (20 January 2018) Chief Ndiweni said “this matter is a clear definition and there is no question about it.” Chief Ndiweni further reiterated that “it serves no purposes whatsoever for either the government of the day or the international community to pretend that Gukurahundi has not happened. We have learnt so tragically from other African countries that if you ignore the people’s cry the only outlet they will have at a future date is a violent one and we don’t want to go that particular route…” The chief further called on the government and the international community to take the Gukurahundi issue serious if Zimbabwe is to go forward and advised that “those that wish not to discuss it or to bring it to the table they are living on a fool’s paradise as this matter is real, there are survivors and mass graves to prove it.” Chief Ndiweni is the son to the late Chief Khayisa Ndiweni who in his lifetime openly spoke for Gukurahundi genocide justice. The Gukurahundi genocide happened in Matabeleland between 1983 – 1987 and was perpetrated by the government sponsored 5th Brigade sectarian army that was trained by the North Koreans in 1981. The brigade committed mass atrocities in Matabeleland and Midlands provinces and the government of Zimbabwe has refused to deal with the issue publicly serve for Robert Mugabe having acknowledged the issue as a ‘moment of madness’ in 1999. The new president OF Zimbabwe is also directly linked to the genocide as there are documented media accounts of him ordering the brigade to exterminate the people of Matabeleland using ‘DDT’ an insecticide. It has been hoped that he will commit to address the issue but since he came to office he has evaded the issue serve to pronounce that ‘let by-gones be by-gones’. President Mnangagwa’s adviser, Chris Mutsvangwa has appeared on BBC saying Gukurahundi is in the history and should not be revived because it is retrogressive. https://matabelelandinstituteforhumanrights.org/2018/01/20/gukurahundi-is-a-genocide-chief-ndiweni/ (c) 2018 Matabeleland Institute for Human Rights

Today, we at DWAG would like to express our solidarity with the all the women across the globe participating in the Women's March and putting an end all forms of gender-based violence. As you know, women in Darfur are disproportionately targeted and face unimaginable suffering. Women are systematically targeted for mass rape, and the social stigma against it forces these women to live alone with that trauma. If women all around the world can speak in one voice, we can change this hold and the perpetrators accountable for their crimes. We must demand justice for women in Darfur! Thank you for your continued support! With gratitude, Niemat Ahmadi President and Founder www.darfurwomenaction.org (c) 2018 arfur Women Action Group

Visiting UN Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in Myanmar Yanghee Lee today met Rohingyas in camps and listened to their horrific experiences of torture in Myanmar. She visited Damdamia Rohingya camp in Teknaf early this morning and talked to 20 Rohingyas -- 10 men and 10 women -- at the reception centre of Teknaf Nature Park. During their meeting with Lee, Rohingyas described to the visiting UN special rights envoy their bitter experiences. Officials of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and international donor agencies were present. Later, the UN envoy visited Nayapara and other places where Rohingyas are now living. Lee arrived here on Friday afternoon on a three-day visit to see rights situation of the displaced Rohingyas living in the district. Lee began her Bangladesh visit on Thursday vowing to fulfill her mandate despite the Myanmar government's refusal to work with her. She is visiting Rohingya camps from today to meet Rohingyas and community leaders. After her Bangladesh visit until January 24, the UN special rapporteur will visit Thailand where she will stay till January 30. Following her visit, the human rights expert will present a report to the Human Rights Council in March 2018. “The government (of Myanmar) has accused me of [being] bias, while at the same time denying that human rights violations have taken place in Myanmar,” Lee said. “I would ask the authorities to rethink their position, and to put the victims first.” The UN envoy said she is determined to carry on -- to the best of her ability -- this very important task of helping the victims of human rights violations and abuses in Myanmar, as mandated to her by the United Nations system. “I've a responsibility to speak on behalf of these victims, and I will not be deterred. This is why I am going ahead to visit neighbouring countries to reach out as far as possible to all victims and witnesses to learn of their experience,” she said earlier. Yanghee Lee was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2014 as the Special Rapporteur on situation of human rights in Myanmar. She is independent from any government or organisation and serves in her individual capacity. http://www.thedailystar.net/rohingya-crisis/rohingyas-share-horrific-tales-torture-un-envoy-1522567 (c) 2018 The Daily Star

The New York Times has offered the first significant Western news reporting on economic and political developments in Sudan; not coincidentally, it came with the Khartoum regime’s arrest of journalists for Reuters, Agence France-Presse (AFP), and the BBC. The U.S. State Department—despite its shameful hurtling towards a normalizing of relations with Khartoum—felt obliged to put out an anodyne statement of a sort that will certainly do nothing to force a recalibration of actions by a regime that has felt free to issue “shoot to kill” orders to halt popular demonstrations in the past (September 2013). It is important at moments like this to remember that the U.S.—under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and the hideous Donald Trump—have all made clear they have no interest in supporting popular efforts to rid Sudan of the tyranny represented by the National Islamic Front/National Congress Party regime, despite its record of serial genocidal counter-insurgencies and the destruction of the Sudanese economy (even as the regime and its cronies has ruled by means of a vast kleptocracy). The defining statement of record for U.S policy, as dictated by the interests of the U.S. intelligence community, is certainly that made by former Obama administration special envoy for the Sudans, Princeton Lyman: “We [the Obama administration] do not want to see the ouster of the [Khartoum] regime, nor regime change. We want to see the regime carrying out reform via constitutional democratic measures.” (Interview with Asharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2011 | http://english.aawsat.com/2011/12/article55244147/asharq-al-awsat-talks-to-us-special-envoy-to-sudan-princeton-lyman ) The same repressive regime that continues genocidal destruction in Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, and Blue Nile; the same regime that arrests and tortures its own citizens as a standard means of controlling the free expression of political views; the same regime that is presently holding a number of Sudanese and non-Sudanese journalists, as well as severely restricting newspaper publication; the same regime that has created the disastrous, if grossly self-enriching, economic state in Sudan…this is the same regime Princeton Lyman would have us believe is capable of “carrying out reform via democratic constitutional measures.” The disgusting mendacity, the shameless expediency of such a statement—supported by not a shred of evidence—defines U.S. Sudan policy. Here is part of the whirlwind we are obliged to reap, along with the equality expedient and disingenuous European countries so actively engaged in rapprochement with Khartoum: “Sudan Jails Journalists in New Sign of Repression,” New York Times, January 19, 2018 (Rich Gladstone) | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/world/africa/sudan-journalists-arrests.html The authorities in Sudan arrested seven journalists as they covered economic protests there this week, including reporters for Reuters and Agence France-Presse, with no word on charges or when they might be released. Press advocates said Friday that the arrests, carried out by Sudan’s National Intelligence and Security Service, reflected an increasingly repressive censorship in the vast African nation, where news media independence has long been under assault. Security agents in the country have frequently confiscated newspapers in recent years and held journalists when their reporting displeased the government of the longtime president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir. The journalists are often released within hours, but not always. The arrests this week were coupled with what press advocacy groups described as a government warning to Sudan newspapers to avoid reporting on the protests, which took place on Tuesday and Wednesday in the capital, Khartoum. Thousands marched peacefully to object to Sudan’s rapidly rising prices. Radio Dabanga, an independent Sudanese news agency that operates from the Netherlands, posted photographs and videos of the protesters in Khartoum. It said the police used batons and tear gas to foil them, arresting at least 40 people. The Committee to Protect Journalists, a press advocacy organization based in New York, criticized Sudan authorities in a statement, saying they should “cease harassing and arresting journalists and confiscating newspapers, and should allow journalists to report on matters of public interest without fear of reprisal.” The committee said the Reuters reporter, identified as Khalid Abdelaziz; the Agence France-Presse reporter, Abdelmunim Abudris; and Ahawky Abdelazim, an editor of a Sudanese newspaper, were arrested on Wednesday. It said four others, arrested Tuesday, included a freelance journalist, Amal Habani, and three reporters, Magdi al-Ajib, Rishan Oushi and Imtenan Al-Radi, who worked for privately owned local newspapers. For Reuters, one of the world’s largest news agencies, Sudan was the second country in the past month in which its journalists had been seized by the government for doing their jobs. Two Reuters reporters were arrested in December in Myanmar while reporting on the persecution of that country’s Rohingya minority. Officials at Reuters and Agence France-Presse said Friday that the Sudanese government had not been forthcoming on why the journalists were arrested or what laws, if any, they may have violated. Reuters said in an emailed statement that “we are actively seeking additional information about the situation.” In its news story on the arrests, Reuters did not identify Mr. Abdelaziz by name and described him as a stringer, a term that refers to a local journalist who works for a news organization that is based elsewhere. The Agence France-Presse bureau chief in Khartoum, Jay Deshmukh, said in an email that Sudanese authorities had informed the agency that the journalists were in a detention center in Khartoum run by the National Intelligence and Security Service. “We have no information as to when they might be released,” he said. The detentions of the journalists got the attention of the Trump administration, which has been slowly moving to improve relations with Sudan but has expressed concern about its history of rights abuses. Sudan is still listed on the State Department’s state sponsor of terrorism blacklist, where it has been since 1993. “We condemn the harassment, arbitrary detention, and attacks on journalists in Sudan who are doing their jobs and exercising their fundamental right to freedom of expression,” Heather Nauert, a State Department spokeswoman, said in a statement. “We remain deeply concerned about freedom of expression, including for members of the media, the closing of political space for all Sudanese, and Sudan’s poor overall human rights record.” [What utter nonsense—there hasn’t been any meaningful concern about “freedom of expression” for the past fifteen years—witness the absurdity of Lyman’s statement in December 2011 (see above)—ER] Sudan government representatives in Khartoum did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the detentions. Mekki Elmograbi, the press attaché at Sudan’s embassy in Washington, said he had no information about the arrests. [Certainly an outright lie—ER] Sherif Mansour, the Middle East and North Africa program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said in a phone interview that Sudan’s press repression had grown increasingly harsh. He attributed the change partly to examples set by other authoritarian leaders, including Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, whose government has harassed and intimidated many journalists to stifle dissident voices. “They look at Egypt and other countries in the neighborhood, and they have passed aggressive measures and gotten away with it,” Mr. Mansour said. “They suppress popular dissent and go after anyone who tries to present it.” http://sudanreeves.org/2018/01/20/international-reporting-on-sudan-finally-finds-its-voice-with-arrest-of-western-journalists/ (c) 2018 SUDAN Research, Analysis, and Advocacy

A 45-year-old Rohingya man decided to flee Myanmar’s Rakhine state this month when his home was set ablaze. His 14-year-old daughter was shot dead as he and his family ran from their house. The man’s story shows that the campaign of violence against his Muslim minority continues, even though a deal to repatriate Rohingya refugees and Hindus from Bangladesh back to Myanmar is set to begin on Tuesday. Many of those who fled their homes are apprehensive. “I’d rather be killed here than be returned,” the man whose house was burned told UNICEF from a refugee camp in Bangladesh, choosing to remain anonymous for fear of his safety. He’s not alone ― Rohingyas continue to cross into Bangladesh by the hundreds, fleeing violence against them led by Burma’s military since last summer. “They will slaughter us all,” Abd-us-Salam, a Rohingya refugee who is more than 100 years old and has fled three crackdowns in Myanmar, told Al Jazeera. “Please don’t send us back as bait for the monster.” Bangladeshi and Burmese officials negotiated the repatriation deal without the oversight of the U.N. Refugee Agency, which typically assists in such situations. The agreement would repatriate about 1,500 Rohingyas per week and house them in temporary transit camps in Myanmar as their homes are rebuilt. Yet without any international monitoring, international organizations worry these vulnerable people will be thrown right back into the misery they sought to escape in the first place. “The bottom line is that refugees have to decide themselves when they feel it’s safe to go back, the process of the repatriation is safe and conditions on the ground make them feel safe,” Caroline Gluck, a U.N. Refugee Agency senior public information officer, told HuffPost. Amnesty International called the repatriation deal “alarmingly premature” and pointed to conditions the two governments have set out in the scheme. For one, Rohingyas interested in returning are required to provide proof of citizenship, something the majority don’t have. In addition, the Burmese government hasn’t indicated it’s willing to change its stance on the Rohingya, a community it has viewed with disdain for decades. A 15-year-old refugee boy who said he was shot in the arm while entering his house, and later had the limb amputated in the jungle, told UNICEF he would only return home if his rights were guaranteed. Subscribe to The Morning Email. Wake up to the day's most important news. “We will go back if we get recognized as Rohingya, and our property, cow and house back,” he told the U.N. child advocacy organization. Another concern is that Rohingyas who have fled to Bangladesh haven’t been informed about the potential repatriations, said a UNICEF media and communications spokesperson. They “absolutely do not want to go back,” the spokesperson said. “They’re full of fear. If you look at past scenarios where Rohingya people have been returned, it has led to more persecution.” The U.N. Refugee Agency hasn’t seen a list of people planning to return, according to Gluck. She surmised that the first to leave would be Rohingya refugees who have been stuck in Bangladesh since the 1990s. They, too, only want to return if their rights are guaranteed, she said. More than 655,000 Rohingyas have fled Myanmar since August, when the Burmese military reignited a crackdown on the religious minority after Rohingya militants reportedly attacked several police posts. Rights groups have accused authorities of summary executions, as well as widespread rape and torture that amount to ethnic cleansing. More than 40 villages have been completely razed, Human Rights Watch determined. The repatriation process, if it begins next week, would take an estimated two years, Gluck said. The U.N. Refugee Agency and other aid organizations plan to remain in Bangladesh as long as their assistance is needed. “They still need services, they need access to health, they will need food and water,” Gluck said. “This is still a long-term operation.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rohingya-return-myanmar-fear_us_5a608c48e4b062a7df0b560c (c) 2018 The Huffington Post

The arrest and prosecution of two Reuters journalists in Myanmar has cast a pall over media workers in the country, with veteran reporters and editors conveying fears that any journalist could be the next victim of intolerant authorities and colonial-era laws. Reporters have expressed frustration with Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s civilian government, which has proven itself firmly in alignment with the country’s powerful military to repress critical coverage. International media organizations operating in Myanmar have begun publishing stories without bylines to protect their local reporters, who have faced escalating intimidation, harassment, and death threats from the public and the authorities. Some outlets have even temporarily shifted personnel out of Myanmar. Those fears appear well founded: Myanmar-based Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo now face up to 14 years in prison under Myanmar’s archaic Official State Secrets Act. The case is widely believed to be politically motivated. “They arrested us and took action against us because we were trying to reveal the truth,” Wa Lone told journalists following their second hearing earlier this month. Than Zaw Aung, the reporters’ lawyer, told TIME that they would be pleading not guilty at their next hearing on Jan. 23. “They worked according to media [ethics] rules. They didn’t break the law,” he says. Read More: Press Freedom on Trial in Myanmar as Reuters Journalists Face Court Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were thought to be investigating the military’s campaign of violence in Rakhine state, which forced more than 655,000 members of the Muslim Rohingya minority to flee into Bangladesh, many bearing accounts of extrajudicial killings, gang rape, and torture. The reporters were invited to meet two police officers last month on the outskirts of Myanmar’s biggest city Yangon. There, they were handed documents and almostimmediately arrested, according to Reuters. The Ministry of Information, quoting police, said they were detained for “illegally obtaining and possessing … important and secret government documents.” A senior official for the ruling National League for Democracy suggested they were framed. Reuters journalist Kyaw Soe Oo is escorted by police after a court appearance in Yangon, Myanmar on Jan. 10, 2018. “The criminal indictment of the two Reuters reporters is a clear escalation of the government’s growing use of legal harassment to intimidate and jail journalists,” the Committee to Protect Journalist’s Southeast Asia representative Shawn Crispin tells TIME, adding that “[Aung San] Suu Kyi’s government is clearly in damage control mode,” as evidence of crimes perpetrated against the Rohingya accumulate. Last week, the military admitted that its soldiers were responsible for the murder of 10 Rohingya men, whose bodies were found in a mass grave. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein has said the operations in Rakhine, which the military contends are a legitimate counter-insurgency, constitutes “textbook ethnic cleansing” and contains “elements of genocide.” For local journalists, reporting on such sensitive issues is fraught with insecurity. The country’s first civilian government in 50 years has shown itself just as willing as its military predecessors to pursue punitive charges against journalists investigating conflict or corruption. Reporters Without Borders ranked Myanmar 131 out of 180 countries in its 2017 World Press Freedom Index. “We can’t be satisfied as journalists even under the government we voted for. It is still dangerous to criticize someone or write what we know is the truth,” says Aung Naing Soe, a journalist and photographer who was recently detained for two months with a team from Turkish broadcaster TRT. The team, which included a Malaysian and Singaporean journalist and their driver, was mostly kept in solitary confinement, he told TIME. The Ministry of Information (MOI) has actively cultivated discord between foreign and domestic media, discrediting international coverage of the Rohingya crisis as biased and potentially detrimental to the country’s political transition while dismissing credible reports of atrocities as “fake news” and “fake rape.” Local journalists are increasingly “portrayed as betrayers of our country,” Aung Naing Soe says. “That’s total nonsense.” At least 32 journalists have been charged in Myanmar while in the line of work since Suu Kyi’s government came to power, according to local group We Support Journalists. Of those, 18 were charged under the notoriously flexible defamation clause of the Telecommunications Law, which rights groups say is used to stifle criticism of authorities. Efforts to amend it last year fell short of protecting defendants from being jailed over social media posts. “The vague wording of many laws in Myanmar … makes it extremely difficult for a journalist or editor to protect themselves from potential legal action,” Tom Kean, Editor-in-Chief of independent weekly magazine Frontier Myanmar told TIME. “There is always a law at hand that can be applied if someone in power is threatened.” Reporters and editors have little recourse. The Myanmar Press Council’s vice chair, Aung Hla Tun, is himself a former Reuters correspondent and an outspoken critic of international coverage of the Rohingya crisis, which he has called “sensational” and “unethical.” This week, he was appointed Deputy Minister of Information. Speaking in Naypyidaw, the country’s capital, in August, he singled out “safeguarding our national image” as Myanmar journalists’ top priority. The government is sending the message to “attack the media, especially foreign media, be virulently racist, and you’ll be rewarded with a cabinet position,” says a Myanmar journalist who wishes to remain anonymous. By targeting a premier news organization like Reuters, whose thorough and unflinching coverage of the Rohingya’s persecution earned a Pulitzer Prize in 2014 and an Honorable Mention from the Society of Publishers in Asia last year, “the government is sending a clear message that no journalist is safe to report on sensitive stories,” CPJ’s Crispin says. “It’s a sad turn for an elected government that many hoped would promote, not repress, media freedoms,” he adds. Tha Lun Zaung Htet, co-founder of the Protection Committee for Myanmar Journalists, a collective of more than 100 media workers, says being a journalist in Myanmar “is becoming very dangerous.” Formed in 2012, the group has become something of a de facto industry front, organizing protests to repeal repressive legislation and free jailed colleagues. This month, they distributed black shirts to reporters attending the Reuters journalists’ hearing to “show the dark age of Myanmar’s press freedom.” “The government does not understand the meaning of press freedom,” he says. “They treat journalists as enemies.” http://time.com/5100337/reuters-journalists-press-freedom-myanmar/ (c) 2018 Time Magazine

There are lies. There are whoppers. And then there is what Andrew Anglin says. Last Friday, Anglin, who publishes The Daily Stormer, the world’s biggest neo-Nazi website, told a federal court that he should not be held responsible for the anti-Semitic threats his followers hurled at a Jewish woman in Montana because he doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened. Mishegoss! By way of background, Anglin mounted this sordid defense in a case brought against him by Tanya Gersh, a real estate agent in Whitefish whom Anglin attacked on his website last winter after Gersh became embroiled in a property dispute with the mother of Richard Spencer, a leader of the “alt-right” white supremacist movement. Anglin published Gersh’s contact information, whipped his “Stormer Troll Army” of readers into a frenzy and sent them repeatedly after Gersh and her family. For weeks, Anglin’s trolls bombarded Gersh with hateful, threatening messages. A sampling: “Ratfaced criminals who play with fire tend to get thrown in the oven”; “Day of the rope soon for your entire family”; “Six million are only the beginning.” The trolls sent Gersh images of herself being sprayed with a cloud of green gas and played her recordings of gunshots when she answered her phone. Anglin posted images of Gersh and her son superimposed over the gates of Auschwitz. Last week, however, Anglin’s attorney Marc Randazza, told the court that his client should not be held responsible for any of the abuse he unleashed, in part because Anglin thinks the Holocaust (which did, in fact, happen) is a hoax. “If Defendant is to be deemed responsible for the speech of third parties, that speech must be viewed through Defendant’s mindset,” wrote Randazza. “In that mindset, there are no gas chambers; there are no ovens; there are no mass killings of Jews. To the speaker, these are fictional metaphors, a ‘threat’ as true as a Star Wars fanatic sending Death Star-blowing-up-Vulcan imagery to a Star Trek fan. It may be hateful, but it is no true threat.” The judge in the case is already irritated at Anglin’s claims that he lives overseas as a “stateless citizen” beyond the court’s jurisdiction — Anglin has so far suggested that he lives in Nigeria and Russia; on Wednesday, he submitted photos of passport stamps and a declaration swearing that he moved to Cambodia four days before Gersh filed her lawsuit. The judge recently told Randazza to “emphasize to Mr. Anglin there’s not going to be any game-playing here. Understood?” No, apparently. Randazza’s latest legal maneuver, which might be illegal in the 16 European countries where Holocaust denial is outlawed, is seemingly without precedent in the United States, according to Brian Levin, a criminologist and civil rights attorney who runs the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. It is also seemingly without merit. True Threats As Levin explained, Anglin’s subjective intent to threaten or cause harm is what matters when assessing a true threat, not his prejudiced refusal to believe in the Holocaust (which happens to be the best-documented genocide in history). What’s more, even fictional material can be construed as a threat, especially in a threatening context. “Let’s say someone sends a picture of Al Pacino in ‘Scarface’ killing somebody,” Levin said. “That might very well cause someone harm.” In 2000, Levin represented Bonnie Jouhari, a Pennsylvania fair housing advocate, in a landmark case with similarities to the Gersh litigation. Jouhari was harassed and threatened by white supremacists after a neo-Nazi posted her picture, along with an image of her office being blown up and a message about how people like Jouhari should “beware, for in our day, they will be hung from the neck from the nearest tree or lamp post,” to his organization’s website. A court ordered the neo-Nazi to pay $1.1 million in damages. Context mattered then, as it will now for Anglin, who has used his site to terrorize numerous people other than Gersh and routinely advocates for violence against various groups. He has written, for example, about “rounding up the entire Negro population of the United States, putting bullets in the backs of their heads and dumping them into an incinerator.” He has written about executing gay people by throwing them off rooftops. He has written about his desire “to see pieces of journalist brains splattered across walls.” In private, Anglin’s speech is no different. “I actually do want to gas kikes,” he assured his website’s writers in a style guide obtained by HuffPost. Members of the Daily Stormer community have taken violent exhortations to heart and murdered at least 15 people in the past few years. Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old who killed nine people in a Charleston, South Carolina, church in 2015, was reportedly a commenter on the site. James Jackson, who traveled from Maryland to New York City last March to stab a black man to death with a sword, cited only one ideological influence after his arrest: The Daily Stormer. Last week, Anglin even laughed about two of those murders on a podcast hosted by “crying Nazi” Christopher Cantwell, who brought an arsenal of guns to Charlottesville, Virginia, in August ahead of a deadly white supremacist rally. “You do have that type of thing,” Anglin told Cantwell, chortling about a double homicide in Tampa, Florida, last May in which a member of the Stormer community who’d converted to Islam murdered two of his neo-Nazi roommates. A third neo-Nazi roommate escaped death but was later arrested for possessing explosives and bomb-making materials, and was sentenced to five years in prison earlier this month. Given this context, whether Anglin believes in the Holocaust or not is moot. When he targeted Gersh, he urged his followers to physically confront her. ”[I]f you’re in the area, maybe you should stop by and tell her in person what you think of her actions,” he wrote. This recommendation echoes a more recent case in which Yousef al-Khattab posted a violent video to his Islamic organization’s website and encouraged readers to seek out Jewish leaders and “deal with them directly at their homes.” Al-Khattab also posted a photo and a map of a Jewish organization’s headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. He pleaded guilty to using the internet to put another in fear of death or injury, and in 2014 was sentenced to 2½ years in prison. Anglin, unlike Al-Khattab, is not a Muslim extremist. He presents more like an American suburbanite, the sort of average white male from a privileged background who tends to fetch up in middle management rather than the middle of a race war. But his superficial white banality ― and that of the alt-right, at large ― masks an underlying fanaticism. The effectiveness of this camouflage owes to both society’s stereotypical assumptions about white men and the alt-right’s decision to discard swastika banners and jackboots in favor of American flags and khakis, which might also help explain why law enforcement would intervene in a case like al-Khattab’s but force Gersh to turn to the Southern Poverty Law Center to support a civil suit against Anglin. But there’s no hiding the Holocaust denial that Randazza, who also represents far-right propagandist and conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, dropped into Anglin’s latest filing. American courts have a rule called “judicial notice” that addresses false assertions and allows one of the parties in the lawsuit to request that proven facts be introduced into evidence when those facts are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are generally known or cannot reasonably be questioned. This happens with dates, weather, location. It happens with historical events, too. To date, Gersh has not requested judicial notice. Litigation As Propaganda? Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Randazza, who did not respond to a request for comment, would go to the trouble of inserting the most offensive of anti-Semitic lies into the legal record. “It’s not the argument that Floyd Abrams would have made,” Levin said, referring to the legendary First Amendment attorney. “This brief is not necessarily written for legal scholars as much as for Anglin’s extremist followers. ... He appears to be using this litigation as a soapbox for his bankrupt racist ideology as much as he is making a legal defense.” Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of Jewish history at Emory University and a leading scholar on Holocaust denial, agrees. “It struck me as fodder for his followers. This is an argument they can use now in one of those message boards,” Lipstadt told HuffPost. “I find it really revolting in and of itself. I think it’s just outrageous. But the other reason I find it so revolting is that it’s a new weapon in the arsenal of these racists.” Lipstadt literally wrote the book on Holocaust denial. For her trouble, she was sued for libel in England by David Irving, a racist sham historian and Holocaust denier who was able to put the truth about a genocide on trial thanks to English law, which assigns the burden of proof to the accused in libel cases. Irving lost in humiliating fashion. A movie was made about Lipstadt’s defense of history. She felt her court victory had sounded a death knell for what she calls “hardcore” Holocaust deniers, who insist that ― to paraphrase Randazza ― there were no gas chambers, no ovens, no mass killings of Jews. But hardcore denial is making a comeback with the alt-right, according to Lipstadt, who sees the same interplay today between hate and delusional thinking that has always characterized Holocaust denial. The lunacy, however, is vastly more potent with the internet and social media, which give racists and fascists an unprecedented way to self-brainwash and radicalize others in echo chambers like The Daily Stormer. Online hate combined with a neo-Nazi-friendly administration ― Donald Trump has himself retweeted neo-Nazis, white supremacists and a member of the Daily Stormer community ― is deeply troubling to Lipstadt. “I find it very, very frightening, and I don’t frighten easily,” she said. “The reach that they have that they never had before is mind-boggling. It’s something that we never imagined.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neo-nazi-holocaust-denial-legal-defense_us_5a612a5ce4b0125fd6354368?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=main_fb&utm_medium=facebook (c) 2018 The Huffington Post

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns the 18-month prison sentences that an Istanbul court passed today on two journalists, Ragıp Duran and Ayşe Düzkan, for taking part in a campaign of solidarity in 2016 with Özgür Gündem, a Kurdish newspaper that was the victim of judicial persecution. RSF, whose Turkey representative is being tried separately for participating in the same campaign, regards the sentences as motivated by a desire to intimidate Turkish civil society. “They haven’t shown enough remorse,” the court said today, explaining the sentences passed on Duran and Düzkan. These two journalists were among a total of 56 civil society figures who took turns in acting symbolically as Özgür Gündem’s “editor for a day” from May to August 2016 in a show of support for the principle of media pluralism. The authorities ended up shutting the newspaper down. Duran and Düzkan were convicted of “propaganda on behalf of a terrorist organization,” namely the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), because of columns that were published in the newspaper while they were its symbolic editors. Also on trial in the same case were the two journalists who wrote the offending columns, Mehmet Ali Çelebi and Hüseyin Bektaş, and the newspaper’s “real” editor, Hüseyin Aykol. Çelebi and Bektaş were also given 18-month jail terms today, while Aykol was sentenced to three years and nine months in prison on the grounds of prior convictions. Although represented by their lawyers, none of the five journalists attended the hearing and they will not have to go to prison before their appeals are heard, which could take several months. “The aim of the Özgür Gündem solidarity campaign was to defend media freedom and pluralism,” said Johann Bihr, the head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk. “Treating its participants as criminals is designed solely to intimidate Turkish civil society at a time when the need for action is greater than ever. We call on the courts to overturn all the convictions in connection with this campaign and to abandon the prosecutions still pending.” Those still being prosecuted for their role in the campaign include RSF’s Turkey representative, Erol Önderoğlu, who is being tried with Şebnem Korur Fincancı, the head of the Turkey Human Rights Foundation (TIHV), and the writer Ahmet Nesin. These three are the only ones to have been placed in pre-trial detention for their part in the campaign. That was in June 2016, when they were held for ten days. They are facing up to 14 and a half years in prison on charges of PKK propaganda, condoning criminal activity and inciting criminal activity. Their trial will resume on 18 April before the same court that sentenced Duran and Düzkan today. According to the Bianet news websites, 20 journalists, writers and intellectual have so far been convicted in connection with this campaign. Most of them have been given fines or suspended prison sentences. Until now, only two, Murat Çelikkan and İmam Canpolat, had been given actual jail sentences. Turkey is ranked 155th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index. The already worrying media situation has become critical under the state of emergency proclaimed after the July 2016 coup attempt. Around 150 media outlets have been closed, mass trials are being held and Turkey now holds the world record for the number of professional journalists detained. https://rsf.org/en/news/two-turkish-journalists-get-jail-terms-solidarity-campaign-role (c) 2018 Reporters Without Borders

Rohingya communities from across the globe have demanded that the Rohingya refugees sheltering in Bangladesh be guaranteed security of life and property and peaceful coexistence as equals with all other people in Myanmar before they are repatriated. "There is no change of attitude of the Myanmar government and its military towards Rohingya; still they identify Rohingya as recent 'Bengali interlopers' from Bangladesh," they said in a joint statement issued January 17. Rohingyas continue entering Bangladesh due to continuing violence and brutality against them in Rakhine, says the statement that comes a day after Myanmar and Bangladesh signed terms of reference of physical arrangement in Nay Pyi Taw, on January 16. Earlier on November 23, the two countries signed a repatriation deal amid global outcry against military crackdown on the Rohingya in Rakhine that forced over 655,000 Rohingyas to flee to Bangladesh since August 25 last year. The UN and the US termed it ethnic violence, while rights bodies defined it as genocide. As per the arrangements, Myanmar will begin taking back the Rohingyas subject to verification from January 23 and will shelter them in a transit camp before Myanmar authorities build houses for them. "The question is how the terrified and traumatised refugees would be repatriated to Rakhine State where they experienced, witnessed and fled the genocidal brutality of Myanmar troops, Rakhine extremists and other vigilantes," says the statement posted by Tun Khin, president of the Burmese Rohingya Organisation, UK. Refugees are homesick, but they are unwilling to return as congenial atmosphere has not been created yet for safe and voluntary repatriation with dignity and honour, the statement said. "The refugees should be settled in their homes. It would be worst simply moving the refugees from camps in Bangladesh to dislodgement sites in Myanmar," it said. It is dangerous that the regime has already claimed state-ownership of Rohingyas' land within the affected region of northern Rakhine State, said the statement, signed by 15 Rohingya organisations including from the UK, USA, Denmark, Japan, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Italy, Sweden, Norway and Netherlands. They placed 12 specific demands that include involvement of the UN refugee agency in the repatriation process, consulting refugee representatives, allowing refugees to identify themselves as Rohingya, and rehabilitating them in their original homes and properties with full compensation under UN supervision with peace-keeping force. They also insisted on creating demilitarised UN safe zones in northern Rakhine State, as an interim measure, in order to guarantee security of life, property and dignity of the persecuted people, and restoring full Myanmar citizenship of the Rohingya. http://www.thedailystar.net/city/guarantee-security-life-repatriation-1522162 (c) 2017 The Daily Star

Nearly a million Rohingya refugees have crossed from their homes in western Myanmar into southeast Bangladesh since August, joining hundreds of thousands of their brothers and sisters who made the same journey in previous years. The Rohingya fled what the United Nations calls “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing,” recounting horrific stories of burned villages and killings at the hands of Myanmar’s military. Bangladesh has accepted the Rohingya and has worked hard to help them. At the same time, Bangladesh negotiated with Myanmar to facilitate their repatriation, and the two sides recently agreed to do so over the next two years. Bangladesh has expanded and improved existing refugee camps for the Rohingya and is building new ones. The government is vaccinating children, registering Rohingya so they can receive assistance, and building living quarters and other infrastructure. These actions have been praised around the world, including by Pope Francis who visited Bangladesh in December. Even so, the government of Bangladesh has drawn criticism for limiting the Rohingyas’ movements to inside the camps and by not granting them permanent residency. Neither is the result of a lack of compassion. Rather, the policies are designed to protect the security of the Bangladeshi people. The media are reporting that the military crackdown on the Rohingya – though clearly unjustified in its scale and cruelty – began as a response to the killing of 12 Myanmar security officers by the Rohingya militant group known as ARSA or the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. The group has been linked to ISIS and al-Qaeda, though ASRA denies this, saying it is fighting for the rights of the Rohingya. Bangladesh’s security concern stems from the fact that the armed ARSA militants, that have crossed into Bangladesh along with the waves of other Rohingya, make the refugee camps a breeding ground for radicalization. In a December article in the Financial Times, analyst Richard Horsey, who lives in Myanmar, wrote, “Any long-term hopeless situation is very conducive for recruitment by radical groups who want to pursue their agenda.” He added, “ARSA will have no problem in identifying young people willing to join” in the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh. This is why Bangladesh cannot safely allow countrywide freedom of movement to the Rohingya. The government can’t ensure that terrorists will not recruit new members to carry out cross-border attacks into Myanmar or, more importantly, to wage terror in Bangladesh. Over the years, Bangladesh has granted refugee status to about 30,000 Rohingya that have fled from Myanmar. But absorbing all 1.3 million Rohingya would constitute an instant population increase of nearly one percent. That may sound small, but similar spikes have contributed to destabilization in other governments around the world. Further, nearly all of the Rohingya in Bangladesh are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum and thus would present an outsized burden on the nation’s social safety net. Bangladesh is proud of its rapid development. In 2015, the World Bank said Bangladesh moved into its lower-middle-income bracket and its annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is over 7 percent. But Bangladesh isn’t a wealthy country. It can help the Rohingya in the short-term and is expending resources to do so. But granting all of the Rohingya permanent residency would shock the economy and set back hard-won gains for everyone. Other than the Rohingya, almost nobody has wanted to emigrate to Bangladesh. As a result, Bangladesh does not have an immigration system like more developed nations. The only way anyone can get Bangladeshi citizenship is by marriage or if one parent is Bangladeshi. Being born in Bangladesh does not confer citizenship. As such, there is no legal path to citizenship for immigrants or refugees. Bangladesh has managed to balance two conflicting demands: supplying humanitarian aid to the Rohingya while ensuring the stability and security in Bangladesh. The government will continue to do everything it can for the Rohingya and will work with Myanmar during their repatriation. But it must also protect the Bangladeshi people. https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/why-bangladesh-cannot-accept-all-the-rohingya/ (c) 2018 The Diplomat