The National Islamic Front/National Congress Party regime in Khartoum has continued for over six years with its brutal, immensely destructive humanitarian blockade of rebel-controlled areas of South Kordofan and Blue Nile states. The results in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan have been devastating, and the poor harvests that seem likely this year because of weather conditions will make things much worse. Despite the continuation of the blockade, and despite “humanitarian access” as a key U.S. requirement for the permanent lifting of U.S. economic sanctions, the Trump administration—confused and easily strong-armed by the U.S. intelligence community—gives all signs of indeed lifting sanctions on Khartoum this coming October 13th, less than two months’ time from now. To be sure, it was the Obama administration that began this accommodation of the regime’s génocidaires, declaring in a preposterous and viciously expedient statement that there had been a “sea change” of improvement of humanitarian access in Sudan—including in this characterization of where “access” had improved both Darfur (where Khartoum continues to deny humanitarian access to roughly a third of the 3 million people the UN declares are in need of assistance) and South Kordofan. Obama administration ambassador to the UN Samantha Power preposterously declared (January 13, 2017) that there had been a “sea change” of improvement in humanitarian access in Sudan We learn how destructive the Obama administration’s gross misrepresentation of access issues is in a piece from Bronwen Dachs, which appeared yesterday in The Boston Pilot; Dachs has worked as a reporter in Africa for Catholic News Service (CNS) for more than a quarter of a century. The entire dispatch appears below, but I highlight a moment that should bring the deepest shame to those members of the Obama administration who put in motion the move to reward Khartoum by initially lifting sanctions: “Here, I have shed tears watching emaciated women with babies on their backs being turned away when they get to the front of the long line because there is nothing left for them,” Oliver Waindi, executive director of the Bishop Gassis Relief and Rescue Foundation, told CNS. “The suffering is as I imagine hell to be.” “There are a lot of children dying here,” Waindi said, noting that before the changed weather patterns of the past two years, “people had very little to eat, but now they have nothing at all.” Nuba child dying of starvation Could there be a greater crime against humanity than to deny people in the most acute distress the most basic means of living? (See my discussion of this question in “On the Obstruction of Humanitarian Aid,” African Studies Review, Volume 54, Number 3 (December 2011), pages 165 – 74 | http://wp.me/p45rOG-I6/). And yet it continues, and all signs from U.S. diplomats and military/intelligence officials make clear that the decision will be to lift permanently sanctions on this heartless and cruel regime, one that remains on the State Department list of “state sponsors of international terrorism”—and with good reason (see | http://wp.me/p45rOG-220/). Khartoum’s Ambitions in the Nuba Mountains Many things seemed to have escaped the attention of—or simply been ignored by—the Obama and Trump administrations. There were really only two significant conditions for the permanent lifting of sanctions: (1) improved humanitarian access (the degree of “improvement” left conveniently unspecified) and (2) the end of offensive military actions, including aerial bombardment of the Nuba Mountains—by Antonov bombers attacking fields, agricultural production, and civilian villages, and by much more precise military aircraft (e.g., the Sukhoi-25’s in the regime’s air force, which have repeatedly, deliberately attacked hospitals, including one operated by Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). A Sukhoi-25, used to attack the MSF hospital in Frandala, South Kordofan for a second time Young Nuba child severely injured by an Antonov bombing attack Perversely, by prohibiting aerial strikes, the Obama/Trump administrations have made all the more important the maintaining of the humanitarian blockade on South Kordofan and Blue Nile. War in these regions has been predominantly war against civilians: they have been the primary targets of aerial as well as ground assaults since violence began in early June 2011. Denied military opportunity to complete their ambitions in these two areas—historically aligned with South Sudan militarily and politically during the long civil war (1983 – 2005)—Khartoum depends even more now upon humanitarian blockades to subdue the rebellion growing out of the regime’s terrible abuses of the people of these regions. The identification of the civilian population with the military resistance is made clearest in a passage from leaked minutes of an August 31, 2014 meeting of the most senior military and security officials of regime (the authenticity of these minutes has been established beyond reasonable doubt, and even the U.S. State Department acknowledges their authenticity; see | http://wp.me/p45rOG-1w5/). At one point in these minutes (which can be found in their entirety, including the Arabic original, at | http://wp.me/p45rOG-1wk/), we hear from General Siddiq Amer, Director General of Intelligence and Security: Let us continue to dismantle the armed movements. The mechanisms to do that are already in place and working. This year the Sudan People’s Army (SPLA) managed to cultivate large areas in South Kordofan State. We must not allow them to harvest these crops. Good harvest means supplies for the war effort. We must starve them, so that, commanders and civilians desert them and then we can recruit the deserters to use them in the war to defeat the rebels. Of course it was not the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army-North (SPLM/A-N) that cultivated the crops but the people of South Kordofan. No doubt bountiful crops assist the SPLM/A-N to survive, but the conflation of the people of South Kordofan (the “cultivators”) and the SPLM/A-N is all too telling. And it is reflective of war policies by this regime in its various genocidal counter-insurgency efforts—in Darfur, in the oil regions of South Sudan, and in the Nuba Mountains during the terrible years in the 1990s when the regime declared a fatwa against the Nuba people and imposed a precedent-setting humanitarian blockade. One victim of Khartoum’s humanitarian blockade of the Nuba Mountains Consequences of Lifting Sanctions Permanently Again, the Trump administration again gives every sign of permanent lifting sanctions on Khartoum, first imposed in 1997 by President Clinton in response to the regime’s conspicuous support of international terrorism—Osama bin Laden resided in Sudan from 1992 – 1996, the years in which al-Qaeda came to fruition. Notably, the Clinton Executive Order imposing sanctions emphasized in its Preface “the prevalence of human rights violations, including slavery and the denial of religious freedom” (this language was ignored out of ignorance or mendacity by the current senior U.S. official in Khartoum, Charge d’Affaires Steven Koutsis | http://wp.me/p45rOG-24G/). U.S. Charge d’Affaires in Khartoum, Steven Koutsis How will Khartoum respond to this grossly misconceived decision by the Trump administration? Convinced that there will be no re-imposition of sanctions, no matter what it does domestically, the violence will increase in South Kordofan and humanitarian access will continue to be denied until South Kordofan is starved into submission. Military victory over the Darfur rebel groups was completed with the ghastly Jebel Marra offensive of 2016, in which chemical weapons were used against civilians. An infant dying from a chemical weapons attack by Khartoum in the Jebel Marra region of Central Darfur; see the September 2016 Amnesty International report at | https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/09/chemical-weapons-attacks-darfur/ And while violence remains at extremely high levels, this is primarily the responsibility of the militias, most notably the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—now officially incorporated into the regular Sudan Armed Forces (SAF). And since the RSF will be redeployed to finish the military job in South Kordofan during the coming dry season (beginning in November/December), the people will be left at the mercy of the more irregular Khartoum-sanctioned Arab militia groups that are already responsible for most of the continuing predations upon African tribal groups, both in camps for displaced persons and in rural areas, where farms continue to be violently expropriated from their African owns on a wide scale (see | (“Changing the Demography”: Violent Expropriation and Destruction of Farmlands in Darfur, November 2014 – November 2015″ | December 1, 2015 | http://wp.me/p45rOG-1P4/). In South Kordofan Khartoum will find the SPLM/A-N badly divided between the brilliant leader of the Nuba, Abdel Aziz al-Hilu and his Blue Nile counterpart, Malik Agar, and senior SPLM/A-N official Yasir Arman. Even with forces united, resistance would have been extremely difficult, given Khartoum’s redeployment of the RSF and its ability to focus militarily exclusively on South Kordofan and Blue Nile. Divided, the SPLM/A-N is greatly weakened. The consequences of the apparently inevitable military victory are too hideous to contemplate, especially given the fierce success of SPLM/A-N military resistance to date. But one thing I know from my time in the Nuba in January 2003—as the broadest outline of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (January 2005) were coming into focus—is that the people of the Nuba will fight to the death. There will be no surrender, since in the view of the Nuba people surrender entails submitting to cultural extinction, loss of all land rights, and constant abuse by the immense holding force Khartoum will put in place. Humanitarian access may finally be granted, but only after military victory—and even then, only on what will be a thoroughly punitive and vengefully dilatory schedule set by Khartoum (which has refused to negotiate such access in good faith since the February 2012, when the Tripartite Agreement on access was first proposed by the UN, the African Union, and the Arab League). The Nuba will have been destroyed. *********************************** “In Sudan’s Nuba Mountains, no food left, and children are dying,” The Boston Pilot, August 17, 2017 | http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=180076 by Bronwen Dachs When people talk about potential famine, they mention South Sudan. But about 1 million people who live just over the border, in Sudan’s Nuba Mountains, also face a food emergency. “I call it famine,” said Bishop Macram Max Gassis, retired bishop of El Obeid, Sudan. The “hunger the people are experiencing” in the Nuba Mountains is “not totally due to the cruelty of nature but, unfortunately, is man-made.” A survey in the diocese’s area of operation, published in June, found that 74 percent of respondents had no food in their homes and 55 percent had, in the previous 30 days, at least one member of the household go a whole day and night without eating at least once. South Sudan won its independence from Sudan in 2011, and Nuba was a disputed region that remained in Sudan, despite its people’s affiliations with the South. Today, people in Sudan’s Nuba Mountains are being bombed by their own government, Bishop Gassis told Catholic News Service. The Diocese of El Obeid issued a statement in early August stating that Nuba communities “are surrounded by battle lines, effectively isolated.” It said delivery of basic services by the Sudanese government and international humanitarian organizations stopped in mid-2011. The diocese “is one of a handful of humanitarian actors delivering critical and life-saving assistance in the area under extremely difficult conditions characterized by high levels of insecurity,” its statement said. The suffering “is evident in the vast number” of people needing food aid and is worse than any previous suffering in the memory of any diocesan staff member, the statement said. “Here, I have shed tears watching emaciated women with babies on their backs being turned away when they get to the front of the long line because there is nothing left for them,” Oliver Waindi, executive director of the Bishop Gassis Relief and Rescue Foundation, told CNS. “The suffering is as I imagine hell to be.” “There are a lot of children dying here,” Waindi said, noting that before the changed weather patterns of the past two years, “people had very little to eat, but now they have nothing at all.” Bishop Gassis said last year, the rainy season was poor, and this year floods have ruined what little people were able to plant. “To give you a picture of how bad things are,” residents of the Nuba Mountains are walking for weeks to seek refuge in South Sudan, Waindi said. “They do that because, in South Sudan, when their turn comes to get a simple bowl of grain, they are more likely to get it,” he said. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 SUDAN Research, Analysis, and Advocacy

The militant group Hezebollah escorted 3,000 Syrian refugees and rebels from Lebanon to Syria’s Qalamoun region on Monday, 14 August. The escort followed an evacuation operation also directed by Hezbollah about a month ago, which sent approximately 7,000 Syrians to the Idlib province in Syria. The UN has warned of the uncertain security situation facing the returnees and has indicated that many of them have been forced to move to satisfy political demands. More than 1 million Syrian refugees have been registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Lebanon’s capital of Beirut, and approximately 500,000 others are believed to be in other parts of the country. There are increasing concerns among Syrian refugees in Beirut that the Lebanese government is trying to push them back to Syria. “The pressure to leave is mounting, they want us to pretend that everything is OK [in Syria], that we are more vulnerable here than we would be there. The Lebanese don’t want us. It’s an uncomfortable time,” said Nabil al-Homsi, a long-term refugee in Lebanon. Bassam Khawaja, a Lebanon researcher for ICRtoP member Human Rights Watch, said: “We’re very concerned about the lack of safeguards or any process in place to ensure that these returns are completely voluntary. Any forced or coerced returns would be a violation of Lebanon’s obligations under international law.” Furthermore, UN deputy spokesman Farhan Haq stated on Monday that over 50,000 Syrians, mostly women and children, are stranded at the border of Syria and Jordan, an area where airstrikes are common these days. Haq added that there are scarce supply of food and healthcare, and around 4,000 people are living solely on water and flour. "The UN calls on all parties to the conflict to take the necessary steps to prevent further harm to the frightened and highly vulnerable individuals stranded at the border," said Haq. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 RtoP Weekly

Anxiety is writ large on the faces of over 3,800 Rohingya Muslims living in this city amid reports that the Indian government is planning to deport them. They say they prefer to die here rather than return to Myanmar, where they face persecution. Having lived here for over five years now, the refugees say they would not like to return to their native country to be slaughtered. They have appealed to the Indian government to drop, on humanitarian grounds, the plans to deport them. "We thank India for allowing us to stay. If the government wants to deport us, it can do it but it will be better if they kill us here instead of sending us back," Abdul Raheem, a refugee, told IANS in a voice choked with emotion. Raheem, 32, who has been living here with his wife and three children since 2012, said they could think of returning to their country only after they were assured of protection of their life and property. Another refugee, Mohammad Younus, alleged that Buddhist-majority Myanmar always went back on its assurances in the past. "This is the third time that I have become a refugee. They never kept their word," said the 63-year-old while narrating his tale of woe. Younus, who is staying here with his wife and daughter, showed a bullet mark on his shoulder. Myanmar Army fired on him and since he was not treated in his country, he had to go to Bangladesh to remove the bullet. Raheem says he was an agriculturist in Arkan (now Rakhine) state in Myanmar but the authorities took away his land. "We had to escape to save our lives. My two brothers went to Bangladesh but I came here," he said. Younus was a businessman in Arkan and his property was also taken away by the government. His suffering did not end with his arrival in India. His was among 125 families which had to leave Jammu and come here about three months ago. "Some people drove us out of our camps in Jammu. There is no end to our suffering," he said, crying inconsolably. Like the majority of refugees, Raheem works as a daily wage labourer for Rs 500. They get the work only for 15 days in a month. Younus runs a small shop. His two sons Zia-ul-Haq and Shams-ul-Haq are ragpickers and live with their families in separate huts. Despite this penury, they are content with their life in India. Hyderabad has the second-largest concentration of Rohingyas after Jammu, where the number is estimated at 7,000. The families have been living in huts or small one-room rented houses in areas like Balapur, Shaheen Nagar, Jalpally, Asad Baba Nagar, Pahadi Shareef on Hyderabad's southern periphery. There are 16,000 Rohangiyas in India registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) but the total number is estimated to be 40,000. In Hyderabad, there are 3,800 Rohangiyas with refugee cards. "We can talk about only those who are registered with us," said Mazher Hussain, Executive Director, Confederation of Voluntary Associations (COVA), a partnering agency with UNHCR. Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju had told parliament last week that the states were directed to identify and deport illegal immigrants. He later told a news agency that all Rohingyas, including those registered with UNHCR, are illegal immigrants. Rohingyas wonder why the Indian authorities viewed them as a threat to national security. "We escaped from our country to save our lives. How can we do anything to harm this country which has given us shelter?" asked Mohammad Toha, 31, who lives in Balapur with his wife and three children. COVA's Hussain felt that while the security concern is genuine, stigmatising the entire Rohangiya community will not help with security tracking. "In any community there will be all sorts of people. A few people will have criminal instincts. They may engage in crime for monetary gains or indulge in anti-national activity due to ideology or anger against the government. Here we don't see any reason for Rohingyas to be angry with the Indian government or system. In fact most of them are very beholden, but you can't 100 per cent rule out anybody," he said. The COVA director said since the police had the record of all those who engage in the criminal activity, the authorities should keep a tab on them instead of viewing the entire community with suspicion. Hussain was of the view that registration with UNHCR facilitates tracking of Rohingyas. "Even if they are deported they may still come and stay illegally. It is difficult to identify them as foreigners. It's also easy to get Aadhaar, PAN and other cards. That will be a bigger security threat," he explained. _____________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 The Economic Times

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued a notice to the Centre over the plan to deport illegal Rohingya immigrants from Myanmar who are residing in various parts of India. The Centre had said illegal immigrants like the Rohingyas pose grave security challenges as they may be recruited by terror groups and had asked state governments to identify and deport them. Taking note of the issue, the NHRC said that till Friday, the country has evolved a practical balance between human and humanitarian obligations on the one hand and security and national interest on the other. Stating that "India has been home to refugees, for centuries", the Commission has held that from the human rights angle, its "intervention is appropriate" in the matter. "The National Human Rights Commission has taken suo moto cognisance of media reports regarding the plans of the Government of India to deport about 40,000 illegal Rohingya immigrants from Myanmar, who are residing in various parts of India. "It has issued a notice to the Union home ministry, through its Secretary, calling for a detailed report in the matter within four weeks," it said in a statement. The NHRC observed that "refugees are no doubt foreign nationals but they are human beings and before taking a big step, the government of India has to look into every aspect of the situation". The NHRC said that the Centre has to look into the situation, "keeping the fact into focus that the members of the Rohingya community, who have crossed the Indian borders and are residing in India for long, have a fear of persecution once they are pushed back to their native country". The Commission has also observed that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution regarding the right to life and personal liberty, "applies to all, irrespective of the fact whether they are citizens of India or not". "It (India) has continued to receive a large number of refugees from different countries. India is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention on Refugees and also the 1967 Protocol. "But India is a signatory to a number of United Nations and World Conventions on Human Rights. Till today (Friday), the country has evolved a practical balance between human and humanitarian obligations on the one hand and security and national interest on the other," it observed. The Rohingyas, who fled to India after violence in the Western Rakhine State of Myanmar, have settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR, and Rajasthan. A home ministry official has, reportedly, said that India was "going ahead with plans" to deport Rohingyas and is in discussions with Myanmar and Bangladesh governments on the issue, the NHRC said. Union minister of state for home Kiren Rijiju had said in Parliament on 9 August that according to available data, more than 14,000 Rohingyas, registered with the UNHCR, are presently staying in India. "However, some inputs indicate that around 40,000 Rohingyas are staying in India illegally and the Rohingyas are largely located in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR, and Rajasthan," he had said. In a communication to all states, the Union home ministry had said the rise of terrorism in last few decades has become a serious concern for most nations as illegal migrants are able to get recruited by terrorist organisations. The Centre had directed the state governments to set up a task force at the district level to identify and deport illegally-staying foreign nationals. ________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 First Post

Myanmar military parade at Armed Force's Day in Naypyitaw on March 27 (Photo by Thurein Hla Htway) What does Myanmar need to push through a successful democratic transition? It must build strong institutions, transform the economy, and end decades of conflict between ethnic armed groups and government forces, among numerous other challenges. Yet, these enormous tasks seem trivial when compared to what is probably the biggest obstacle to further democratic reform: the role of Myanmar's armed forces, or Tatmadaw. No other institution is more powerful than the Tatmadaw in Myanmar. Over five decades of military rule, the armed forces became entrenched in politics and business. Not only does it occupy 25% of total seats in parliament, granting it an effective veto over constitutional change, but it also controls three key ministries: Defense, Home Affairs, and Border Affairs. The president is not the commander-in-chief, and hence, has no official control of the Tatmadaw. Moreover, the constitution grants the military power to take charge of the country in times of emergency. Building a professional military -- a military under civilian control that stays out of politics and respects international norms -- is crucial for Myanmar's democratization. Improvement along these lines would also be invaluable for the peace process and ultimately for reform of the military-drafted constitution. For this mission, the Myanmar government -- particularly its de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi -- should ask the U.S. to assist with the professionalization of the Myanmar military. Evolving ties The U.S. restored full diplomatic relations with Myanmar in 2013, and virtually all economic sanctions were lifted during the Obama administration. However, the U.S. Congress has maintained laws, restrictions and policies that do not allow the U.S. military to fully engage with the Myanmar armed forces. This includes providing assistance to the Tatmadaw and offering professional military education to its officers. Curbs such as the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act of 2008, State Department policies and specific wording in U.S. appropriation acts for Myanmar prohibit U.S. government funding of military training for Myanmar. Despite such hurdles, Myanmar's military leaders have shown eagerness to forge closer military ties with the Pentagon. Since 2012, the Tatmadaw has sought training from the U.S. in non-lethal areas such as dealing with the media and professional military education. Although current U.S. laws and policy prevent U.S. training for the Tatmadaw, a formal request from the civilian-led Myanmar government to the U.S. government, per diplomatic norms, would likely be well received by the U.S. Congress. While bilateral relations are not as active as they were under the previous U.S. administration, Suu Kyi's enduring influence in Washington could help change, or at least allow for, certain exceptions to the current restrictive policies. Although her image has been damaged internationally after anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar's Rakhine State, Suu Kyi still has the power to rally support behind her on Capitol Hill. For instance, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "Don't forget about Burma" in their first meeting. Tillerson spoke with Suu Kyi by phone in late June and invited her to the U.S. later this year. America well suited to assist Myanmar's armed forces in this respect, and has experience helping militaries in many countries through a full menu of non-lethal courses and training offered by the U.S.-funded Expanded International Military and Education Training (E-IMET) program. Its objectives include a focus on proper management of defense resources, improving military justice systems in accordance with internationally recognized human rights, and understanding the principle of civilian control of the military. In order to attain an E-IMET program, a country must be eligible to receive congressionally appropriated IMET funds. Each year the U.S. Congress reviews each country's situation and can approve or withdraw funding for training if so warranted. There are many E-IMET success stories. One historical example of success, in terms of helping with a military's professionalization and a country's democratic transition, is Indonesia. Gen. Suharto and his New Order regime ran Indonesia for 32 years from 1966 to 1998 essentially as a military-backed dictatorship. Similar to Myanmar today, Indonesia once had military representation in the legislative body. The U.S. had trained hundreds of Indonesian military officers under the IMET and E-IMET programs. During the country's democratic transition, the Indonesian military, realizing the benefit of democracy due to its exposure to democratic armies, removed itself from the legislative body in 2004. An influential leader of the reform group that was integral to extracting the Indonesian military from the legislative body was Indonesian army Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Agus Widjojo. He was an IMET recipient who attended the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in 1988 and the U.S. National Defense University in 1994. "IMET played a crucial role in Indonesia's democratization and could so in Burma too," Widjojo once stated. In mid-August, he traveled to Naypyitaw to give a presentation and share Indonesia's experience at a high-level gathering organized by the Myanmar government, called Forum on Myanmar's Democratic Transition. Suu Kyi opened the three-day forum. US engagement and training would assist troubled democratic transition Currently, IMET funding and the E-IMET program are unavailable to Myanmar. As her country's de facto leader, Suu Kyi should ask for this engagement during her upcoming Washington visit. Among courses that would provide appropriate training for the Myanmar military are the U.S. Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, professional military education training courses, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief courses in the U.S. and neighboring Asian countries. The request should also include attendance of Tatmadaw officers and civilian defense officials in wide-ranging courses offered at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii. Although not part of the IMET program, Suu Kyi should also ask for participation in the U.S. State Partnership Program. Through engagement with a State National Guard unit and attendance at various training programs in the U.S., Tatmadaw officers could learn firsthand the importance of civilian control of the military and of adhering to international norms. Engagement necessary U.S. engagement with the Myanmar military is necessary to help Myanmar stay on track for democratic reforms. Washington could start this process by restoring IMET funding. It is understandable that some Myanmar watchers and local commentators, however, do not subscribe to this thinking. They argue that the U.S. should not reach out to the Myanmar military but use its political leverage instead to pressure the Tatmadaw on a range of issues, from human rights concerns to the nature of military operations. The public is also skeptical about the type of U.S. training offered. People are worried that the Myanmar military will receive tactical or combat training and then use that against its own citizens. The public's concern is understandable, which is why we suggest that Suu Kyi should only ask for non-lethal and leadership training that focuses on core objectives of a professional military. Such training would introduce the Myanmar military to democratic values and international norms. Building the capacity of the mid-level officers is, in a way, nurturing the next generation of the Tatmadaw leaders. Additionally, such developed capacity in the Myanmar military would help them to understand and embrace the concept of a free media in a democratic society and welcome any type of external oversight of disputes involving the security forces, such as the United Nations's recent request to examine the situation in Rakhine State. The Trump administration, with its maturing focus on cooperation with member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the U.S. Congress with its history of assisting developing nations with their transition to democracy, would likely respond favorably to a request from Myanmar's State Counselor Suu Kyi to professionalize the military. A Tatmadaw that is under civilian control, respectful of human rights and international norms would make an invaluable contribution to Myanmar's transition to democracy. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Asian Review

Myanmar Army troops arrive in Sittwe on Thursday. / Myanmar Pressphoto Agency The Myanmar Army gave verbal orders to villagers in northern Rakhine State to avoid entering the Mayu mountain range as they conduct clearance operations in Maungdaw Township, a border police major told The Irrawaddy on Monday. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, he said that the order was “to prevent fatalities.” Security forces have been carrying out such operations for months, searching for suspected Muslim militants in the region. Efforts appear to have intensified, with hundreds of soldiers arriving in two military aircrafts at Sittwe airport on Thursday and continuing on to Maungdaw the following day. Over the weekend, the authorities extended a curfew that was already in place in the township. Reports of the most recent verbal order for locals to avoid the highlands came after a meeting between military commander-in-chief Snr-Gen Min Aung Hlaing and a seven-member delegation from the Arakan National Party (ANP) in Naypyitaw last week. The nationalist party representatives demanded further troop deployment around ethnic Arakanese villages in Maungdaw Township as eight people from Kai Gyee village were found dead on Aug. 3 with gunshot and machete wounds, suspected to have been killed by militants. The police major could not provide The Irrawaddy with an estimated timeframe for the current military operation as he said the mission is directly supervised by army officers. The Irrawaddy repeatedly phoned Maungdaw district administrative officials on Monday for details, but there was no answer at their headquarters. Head of the police station in neighboring Buthidaung Township Lt Kyaw Khine briefly acknowledged that the verbal order by army was made days ago but that it has not been officially announced within the region. “As far as I know, army units have been assigned to ethnic villages which are situated near the Mayu mountains,” he said, referring to Buddhist Arakanese communities. Ko Maung Soe Win, an Arakanese resident of Zay Di Pyin village in northern Rakhine State’s Rathedaung Township, told The Irrawaddy that both Muslim and Buddhist residents were told by army officials not to set foot in the Mayu mountains, where they typically gather edible plants. He added that villagers are also afraid to go their paddy fields, which are situated near Muslim villages, noting that levels of mistrust between the communities are particularly high. A Muslim resident of Zay Di Pyin, Al-Haj Zawhie Thra, said that authorities officially announced a curfew banning people from going out in the evenings and gatherings of five or more in public. He added that around five army infantry units had deployed near the Mayu highlands. “Carrying out law enforcement in an unstable situation is a good idea, but the authorities should also consider the challenges of villagers’ daily life,” he told The Irrawaddy. Zawhie Thra said that after hundreds of Muslim residents in Outt Nan village confrontedsecurity forces last week as they attempted to arrest six men, the authorities created a barbed-wire fence between Muslim and Buddhist quarters in nearby Zay Di Pyin village and blocked all road entrances, effectively segregating the community. The market, he explained, is located in the Buddhist Arakanese quarter and Muslims have not been allowed to either shop there or sell their goods since last week. “Some poor people are now facing a great dilemma,” Zawhie Thra said. Meanwhile, farmers from Kai Gyee in Maungdaw are asking that the entire community be evacuated to another neighboring Arakanese village after their rice is harvested in the forthcoming cool season, said U Khin Maung Than, head of the Maungdaw chapter of the ANP. According to local Arakanese publication Narinjara, state authorities visited Kai Gyee on Monday, reportedly asking the villagers not to leave and promising them protection, a new school and road, and solar panels. Currently, farmers from Kai Gyee village are cultivating their paddies under the protection of security guards, U Khin Maung Than said. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 The Irrawaddy

The Indian government plans to deport 40,000 Rohingya Muslims living in the country to Myanmar after labelling them all illegal immigrants. Last week Kiren Rijiju, the junior interior minister, told parliament that the central government had directed state authorities to identify and deport illegal immigrants. He said this included Rohingya, who face persecution in Buddhist-majority Myanmar. And in an interview with Reuters, Rijiju said the measures would even apply to the 16,500 Rohingya who have been given identity cards by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR says the cards help to "prevent harassment, arbitrary arrests, detention and deportation". "We can't stop them from registering," Rijiju said. "But we are not [a] signatory to the accord on refugees. As far as we are concerned they are all illegal immigrants. They have no basis to live here. Anybody who is [an] illegal migrant will be deported." The Indian government says it is in talks with Bangladesh and Myanmar about the plan for deportation. "There's a procedure, there is a rule of law," Rijiju said in his interview. "We can't throw them out just like that. We can't dump them in the Bay of Bengal." Roughly one million Rohingya live in Myanmar, a Buddhist-majority country. But in recent months tens of thousands have fled amid an intensifying military crackdown in the western state of Rakhine. Some have fled to Bangladesh, India and south-east Asia. The UN has said the Rohingya are being collectively punished for militant attacks, although the Burmese government disputes this. In February the UN's special adviser said the violence could amount to crimes against humanity. There is increasing concern over rising Hindu nationalism in India. In recent years there have been attacks on churches and mosques; Hindu groups have engaged in forced conversions; and there have been crackdowns on the sale and possession of beef. Last month Ram Nath Kovind, a low-caste politician backed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's conservative religious faction, was elected president. In March, Modi appointed Yogi Adityanath as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh – a state of 200m people, around a fifth of whom are Muslim. Adityanath founded the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a religious activist organisation which critics say is a Hindu supremacist group. In one incident a decade ago, court documents allege that Adityanath's followers went on a rampage, burning Muslim-owned properties and an Islamic mausoleum. The National Secular Society said the Indian authorities' stance was "deeply troubling". A spokesperson said: "Merging religion and nationalism will always create 'others' to be excluded and discriminated against." __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ © 2017 National Secular Society

Iraqi Yazidis who escaped the Islamic State from Sinjar enteing Dohuk Province, in Iraqi Kurdistan, from Syria in 2014. Kurdish fighters helped them.ADAM FERGUSON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Nadia Murad was 21 years old when, she says, Islamic State fighters abducted her, beat her and raped her. Her offense: belonging to the minority Yazidi community, whom the Islamic State regards as infidels. Her cause for the last two years: demanding justice for the Islamic State’s atrocities. This week, Ms. Murad clinched a small, but important victory. Her country, Iraq, agreed to let the Security Council appoint a panel of independent investigators to gather evidence of the most serious crimes committed by the Islamic State, and not just those against Yazidis. Lacking that, the Security Council would have had to adopt a resolution to create such a panel. Still to be resolved is where and how those crimes will be prosecuted, and how to make sure those trials are credible and not displays of victor’s justice. Ms. Murad’s quest poses an acute test for the promise of international justice, born from the ashes of Nazi genocide 70 years ago, after World War II. If the most powerful countries in the world cannot hold accountable those who are accused of enslaving women for sex, beheading their perceived enemies, turning children into suicide bombers and carrying out what an international panel believes could be an act of genocide against the Yazidi people, what is the very notion of international justice good for? The Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is accused of some of the gravest crimes known to humanity, and not only against the Yazidis. It does not have powerful countries defending it, as does say, the government of Syria, which also stands accused of a raft of war crimes. Anti-ISIS activist Nadia Murad in 2016. A member of the Yazidi community, she has spent two years seeking justice for crimes she says ISIS committed against her and others. ELIZABETH LIPPMAN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Not least, the Islamic State committed these atrocities at a time when the world has a set of firmly established laws and a permanent International Criminal Court in The Hague precisely to deter and punish those who commit such crimes. The I.C.C. has no jurisdiction in Iraq, though; the nation is not a member of the court, and there is no appetite on the Security Council’s part to refer the conflict in Iraq to the court. In early August, the United Nations-authorized Commission of Inquiry urgedworld powers to recognize the crime of genocide against the Yazidis and to “undertake steps to refer the situation to justice.” Yet, even with that, the effort to investigate — let alone prosecute — those crimes has not been so straightforward. The Security Council has the power to dispatch investigators to collect evidence or to set up a special tribunal. But it was reluctant to do either without Iraq’s consent. That consent came Wednesday. In a letter to the United Nations, Iraq’s foreign minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said his government would work with the British government on a draft Security Council resolution seeking “international expertise to criminalize” the Islamic State. The political sensitivities were clear in his letter. Mr. al-Jaafari emphasized Iraq’s “sovereignty and jurisdiction” in adopting any such resolution. Iraqi special forces searching in July for remaining Islamic State fighters still hiding in the destroyed Old City of Mosul. IVOR PRICKETT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES Amal Clooney, a British lawyer and rights activist who represents Ms. Murad, said she welcomed Iraq’s consent for an international investigation, as a first step. “Yazidis and other ISIS victims want justice in a court of law, and they deserve nothing less,” Ms. Clooney said in a statement Wednesday. “I hope that the Iraqi government’s letter will mark the beginning of the end of impunity for genocide and other crimes that ISIS is committing in Iraq and around the world.” Justice, of course, means different things to different parties. Iraq has arrested thousands of suspected Islamic State members under its counterterrorism laws, which include the death penalty for membership in a banned terrorist group. Islamic State fighters are facing trials in domestic courts from Tunisia to Germany to Iraq, although it remains to be seen how or where the group’s most senior leaders will be tried for the most serious international crimes, including genocide. Trying such crimes in local courts can be tricky. “Most significantly,” said Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel with Human Rights Watch, “political will to permit independent and impartial criminal prosecutions can be in short supply in countries affected by conflict.” Ms. Murad, now 24, is barely five feet tall. She does not smile much, and she rarely veers away from her prepared remarks, in Arabic. She favors solid black tunics and shoes made for walking. She sometimes looks as though she would rather be doing anything other than recounting for well-dressed, influential world leaders the horrors she lived through. She has met with the Canadian prime minister, the queen of Jordan, United States ambassadors (representing both the Obama and Trump administrations), two successive secretaries general of the United Nations and, on several occasions, halls of dignitaries and philanthropists. An Iraqi Yazidi family at a camp in Northern Iraq in 2014. They had fled to a camp in Syria, in the face of Islamic State attacks. LYNSEY ADDARIO FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES She has told and retold her awful story. The man who first came for her. “A monster,” is how she described him. Her brothers being executed. Mass graves. And as time goes on, and she finds herself telling and retelling her story, it becomes harder for her to contain her fury. At a briefing in the Security Council earlier this year, she looked up from her notes at one point and snapped, in halting English, at a room full of hushed diplomats from the world’s most powerful countries. “What more you need before you will act?” she asked bluntly. She was honored last year with a human rights prize in honor of the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel. The United Nations appointed her a good will ambassador. Her memoir, “The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State,” is to be published this fall by Tim Duggan Books, an imprint of Crown Publishing Group. Ms. Murad, who now lives in Germany, says she never wanted this life. She was a farmer’s daughter. She wanted to open a beauty salon. Her discomfort at being a crusader comes out sometimes. In an interview last fall, she confessed to being worn out, but also unable to give up. “I will go back to my life when women in captivity go back to their lives, when my community has a place, when I see people accountable for their crimes,” she said. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 The New York Times

A Rohingya boy from Burma carries his brother as he leaves after offering the afternoon prayer during the holy month of Ramadan, at a camp in New Delhi, India, June 28, 2015. © 2015 Adnan Abidi / Reuters The Indian government should not forcibly return ethnic Rohingya refugees to Burma, where they face persecution, Human Rights Watch said today. India should abide by its international legal obligations and protect the Rohingya – a Muslim minority predominately from western Burma – from systematic abuse by Burmese officials and state security forces.On August 9, 2017, the Indian minister of state for home affairs, Kiren Rijiju, told the parliament that “the government has issued detailed instructions for deportation of illegal foreign nationals including Rohingyas,” noting that there were around “40,000 Rohingyas living illegally in the country.”“India has a long record of helping vulnerable populations fleeing from neighboring countries, including Sri Lankans, Afghans, and Tibetans,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director. “Indian authorities should abide by India’s international legal obligations and not forcibly return any Rohingya to Burma without first fairly evaluating their claims as refugees.” About 16,500 Rohingya living in India are registeredwith the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). The government contends that tens of thousands are unregistered. Minister Rijiju told Reuters news agency, “They [UNHCR] are doing it, we can't stop them from registering. But we are not signatory to the accord on refugees.” He added: “As far as we are concerned, they are all illegal immigrants. They have no basis to live here. Anybody who is an illegal migrant will be deported.” Rijiju’s statement does not accurately reflect India’s obligations under international refugee law. While India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, it is still bound by customary international law not to forcibly return any refugee to a place where they face a serious risk of persecution or threats to their life or freedom. The Rohingya are largely living in the Indian states of Jammu and Kashmir, Telangana, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, and Rajasthan. Since 2016, Rohingya refugees in Jammu have been targeted by right-wing Hindu groups who have been calling for their eviction from the state, with some groups even threatening attacks if the government rejected their call. In December 2016, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a group with links to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), demanded the eviction of Rohingya from Jammu, calling them a threat to security. Another group, the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, started a public campaign against the Rohingya, putting up billboards in the city calling on Rohingya and Bangladeshis to leave the state. In February 2017, a BJP member whose lawyer is the BJP spokesman in Jammu, filed a petition in the state high court seeking the Rohingya’s deportation, arguing that there had been a sharp increase in illegal migrants from Burma and Bangladesh. The campaign by Hindu groups against the Rohingya in Jammu has prompted vigilante-style attacks against them. In April, unidentified assailants reportedly set on fire five huts housing Rohingya in Jammu. Four days earlier several Rohingya families living in the outskirts of Jammu alleged that unidentified people beat them up and set ablaze the scrap they collected to earn a livelihood. Xenophobic statements by government officials about Rohingya could fuel further violence against them and Bengali-speaking Muslims. Human Rights Watch has extensively documented the rampant and systemic violations against the ethnic Rohingya in Burma. The estimated 1.2 million Rohingya, most of whom live in Burma’s Rakhine State, have long been targets of government discrimination, facilitated by their effective denial of citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law. The Rohingya have faced longstanding rights abuses, including restrictions on movement, limitations on access to health care, livelihood, shelter, and education; as well as arbitrary arrests and detention, and forced labor. An estimated 120,000 people, the vast majority Rohingya, are currently displaced in camps in Rakhine State as a result of violence in 2012 that amounted to crimes against humanity and “ethnic cleansing.” The displaced Rohingya live in squalid, prison-like conditions in these camps. An estimated 300,000 to 500,000 Rohingya are living in Bangladesh, where the vast majority have also been prevented from filing refugee claims. The Burmese government refuses to use the term “Rohingya,” with which the group self-identifies, but often uses the pejorative term “Bengali,” implying illegal migrant status in Burma. Human Rights Watch has documented numerous abuses associated with recent military operations following attacks by alleged Rohingya militants in October 2016 in Rakhine State, including widespread arson, extrajudicial killings, systematic rape, and other forms of sexual violence. The United Nations estimates that more than 1,000 people were killed in the crackdown. A February report by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) concluded that the attacks against the Rohingya “very likely” amounted to “crimes against humanity.” In March 2017, the UN Human Rights Council, of which India is a member, passed a resolution establishing an independent international fact-finding mission with a mandate to investigate allegations of recent human rights abuses in Burma, especially in Rakhine State. The government has stated its intention to deny the mission access to the country. Due to Burma’s discriminatory citizenship policies, it refuses to cooperate in the repatriation of Rohingya, itself a denial of the human right of any person to return to their country. India has in the past called upon Burma to address the issues around the Rohingya and to ensure their protection. Minister Rijiju has stated that deportations will occur only in consultation with the authorities in Bangladesh and Burma. “Without the willingness or capacity to evaluate refugee claims, the Indian government should put an end to any plans to deport the Rohingya, and instead register them so that they can get an education and health care and find work,” Ganguly said. “Most of the Rohingya were forced to flee egregious abuse, and India should show leadership by protecting the beleaguered community and calling on the Burmese government to end the repression and atrocities causing these people to leave.” __________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Human Rights Watch

Jamalida, a Rohingya refu­gee from Burma. (Allison Joyce/Getty Images) In February, the United Nations released a report detailing the Burmese government’s human rights abuses against the long-suffering Rohingya Muslim minority in Rakhine state — abuses that likely amounted to crimes against humanity. Burma should have responded by allowing U.N. investigators into the country and creating accountability mechanisms to prevent further violations. Instead, a government inquiry has concluded that there is “no evidence of crimes” and that “people from abroad have fabricated news claiming genocide had occurred.” On the contrary, there is considerable evidence to suggest that systematic human rights violations have occurred in Rakhine. The Rohingya have long been denied citizenship and pushed into ghetto-like conditions. This persecution escalated last year, when Burmese security forces conducted a scorched-earth campaign in the state amid widespread reports of mass rape, torture, arbitrary arrests and extrajudicial killings. The government has also restricted the movements of Rohingya people, imposing curfews and contributing to extreme food shortages. Nearly 90 people have died since the violence erupted last year, while an estimated 65,000 have fled Rakhine. Burma’s response was to establish an investigative commission that lacked credibility from the outset. The 13-member committee was headed by former military leader and current Vice President Myint Swe and included no Rohingya representatives. According to reports from civil society, its investigators used sloppy research methods, browbeat villagers and ignored complaints. The commission made a few common-sense recommendations. It rightly acknowledged that imposing restrictions on Rohingya and the media in Rakhine could create conditions for violence and extremism, and it suggested relaxing limitations on humanitarian assistance. Yet these proposals are overshadowed by the commission’s denial of any systematic wrongdoing. Along with new calls to expand security measures against Muslim insurgents and reports of a troop surge in Rakhine, this essentially gives the military the green light to continue using excessive force. It is becoming increasingly clear that Burma’s partially democratic government bears many similarities to its autocratic predecessor: It is overly sensitive to criticism, repressive toward minorities and willing to go to great lengths to protect the military. The international community should take note and renew calls to allow a U.N. fact-finding mission to visit the country. Congress should rethink the idea of expanding American military ties with Burma or, at the very least, consider imposing a vetting process and human rights benchmarks for any further military engagement. The United States has long championed democracy in Burma; the commission’s announcement proves this fight is not over yet. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 The Washington Post

By Eric Reeves Most Americans are now struggling simply to make sense of the reality of a president who has conspicuously given encouragement to men and women who have in common an explicit racism and bigotry of the most extreme sort. The disparagement and hatred of African Americans and Jews has come to us in such brutal and unfiltered form in the wake of Charlottesville that our sense of outrage is overwhelmed, our ability to express fully our abhorrence is hobbled by the enormity of the hatred that has come into such sharp focus. I offer no words of suitable outrage here, no expression of adequate abhorrence. But I would remind my fellow Americans lost in despair to recall a president who in his magnanimous and almost unimaginably courageous and tenacious determination to end slavery in our country demonstrated how great the American spirit can be when blessed with inspired leadership. Abraham Lincoln is at once the archetypal American icon and a source of endless historical dispute. But I find no convincing argument that Lincoln was anything but ferociously committed to ending slavery in our country. Historians will debate endlessly the pragmatic and moral elements of his four years as president; but his Second Inaugural Address seems to me to have been precisely what Frederick Douglass described it as: a “sacred effort.” And it is worth our recalling that despite the omnipresence of contemptible and hateful words from our current president, his great predecessor still speaks more profoundly to us, perhaps even more so in our present grief and moral bewilderment. In March 1865 the Civil War was largely over—and Lincoln himself would be assassinated in April of that year. These facts give to his Second Inaugural a valedictory quality that Lincoln himself could have only vaguely intuited. But for later audiences, Lincoln’s words sound enduring moral notes that make the thoughtlessness of white supremacy—and defenses of the Confederacy—painfully clear. Although both sides in the war “invoked [God’s] aid against the other,” Lincoln felt compelled to offer the most essential truth, even as he deliberately skirted broader judgments of his Southern foes: “It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces…” Today, most Americans find a similar “strangeness” in the assertion of racial superiority—especially when that superiority is violently asserted, as it explicitly was by the Confederacy during the Civil War—and as it has continued to inform so many attitudes towards what the Confederacy represented. We need look no further than these indisputable facts to understand the repugnance felt by so many at the erecting, decades later, of monuments celebrating this violent Confederate claim. But it is Lincoln’s own assertion of perseverance that has, I believe, the deepest resonance for modern readers of this great document. At the time of the Second Inaugural some 600,000 men had lost their lives in the conflict; countless more were injured, and nearly all American families were in some way bereft or diminished by the war’s unimaginable violence. And yet Lincoln would insist, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God will that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty hears of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousands years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’” What should we in the 21st century hear in this archaic biblical invocation (Psalm 19) and the harsh commitment to military victory? I believe we should be reminded that there are some who have not accepted the full implications of the Union victory, and who are still willing to play the role of “bondsman.” In turn, we must accept that those so willing are to be confronted with the determination to expend all that is necessary of national blood and treasure to ensure that slavery, in all its forms, shall finally have been fully subdued in our country. The greatest tragedy of the Trump presidency in the wake of Charlottesville is that we have seen the prospect of the revived “bondsman”; and we have heard the “bondsman” encouraged by equivocation and disingenuousness on the part of the chief executive of the United States. Many find the biblical fervor of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural strange. But what cannot be strange to us is the lifelong, passionate moral response to human suffering that animates every word of this great American document. And should we need guidance in responding to the suffering that far too many would again inflict on the descendants of slaves, we would do well to recall how much Lincoln felt we as a nation must be prepared to sacrifice to end the moral catastrophe of failing truly to believe that “all men are created equal.” __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Huffington Post

Bangladesh has stepped up patrols on its border with Myanmar, following reports that about 1,000 Rohingya Muslims crossed into the country in the past two weeks, amid fresh tension in its neighbour's northwestern Rakhine state. Security forces in Buddhist-majority Myanmar launched a massive crackdown in the state after Rohingya insurgents killed nine police in October, but the flow of refugees into Bangladesh had slowed until hundreds more soldiers were deployed recently. "Security forces are patrolling the villages daily," said Rahim, a teacher from Dar Gyi Zar village in Myanmar who fled to Bangladesh last year, but remains in touch with family members. "My mother is 73 and is panicking there, but she won't be able to flee," said Rahim, who uses one name, like many Rohingya. "No one will be allowed to illegally cross into our country," Manuzurul Hasan Khan, a senior Bangladesh border guard official, told Reuters, adding that the two countries were jointly patrolling frontier areas. There had been no major influx recently, he said, adding that the border was peaceful, with more joint patrols scheduled for this week. However, Rahim and a Rohingya leader in Bangladesh put the total of new refugees at more than 1,000. There had been a constant "slow movement of people across the border," a senior U.N. official in Bangladesh said. About 1,000 households had crossed each month in April, May and June, estimated the official, who declined to be identified in the absence of authorisation to talk to the media. The figure rose to 1,300 households in July, the official said, adding that the border area was "definitely seeing more new arrivals" in August. About 500 of the newly arrived Rohingya live near an unofficial refugee camp in Leda, near the Naf river separating Bangladesh from Myanmar, said Zayed, a Rohingya leader. The rest have moved elsewhere in the border district of Cox's Bazar. Before the latest inflow, about 75,000 Rohinhya had fled to Bangladesh since October, joining tens of thousands already there and straining resources. Some families were packing up to leave, fearing another violent crackdown, a Rohingya resident of Maungdaw in Myanmar told Reuters. "People here are feeling depressed and getting so scared, hearing that more troops are coming to do area clearance again," the resident said on Saturday, seeking anonymity for fear of repercussions. "We have no one to protect us here." The resident and a human rights monitor with sources in northern Rakhine said security forces had run intensive searches and arrested some Rohingya men. Kyaw Swar Tun, an administrator in the Rakhine state capital of Sittwe, said security had been stepped up in the state's north, but denied that Muslims were fleeing across the border. "I don't hear anything of Bengali people leaving or entering the country during these days," he said, using a derogatory term for the Rohingya to imply they are interlopers from Bangladesh. The treatment of the roughly one million Rohingya in Myanmar has emerged as the country's most contentious human rights issue as it transitions from decades of harsh military rule. Myanmar denies citizenship to the Rohingya and classifies them as illegal immigrants, though they claim roots there dating back centuries. Myanmar security forces continue to harrass Rohingya in Rakhine, said Noor Bashar, 26, who fled to Cox's Bazar last week. "Many more are still waiting to enter Bangladesh but it's difficult, due to the increased patrolling," she told Reuters. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Reuters