​In Burma, everyone who is remotely informed about the ways the military works ​knows the Hidden Hand behind what academics call "ethno-religious mobilization" (mobilizing public opinion along racial/religious lines scapegoating weak and vulnerable minorities for all the ills and hardships in society). In Germany of 1920's and 1930's, the Nazi party was the main mobilizer. In Burma today, the army uses the Sangha or Buddhist Order - conservative, typically racist, ill-educated in terms of intellectual outlooks and growth of its members, and rural (parochial) - as its proxy mobilizer. The military - at the senior most level of leadership - has patronized a tiny gang of influential monks to do the army's bidding - racist divide and rule within the society that is generally anti-military. Here two monks, namely Sitagu and Wirathu, are seen travelling with their security details. This is the strategic symbiosis which has served the Burmese military's objectives of social control extremely well. It has enabled the military to keep the NLD - with absolutely no capacity for intelligence gathering or control of security forces - on its toes in terms of the socially destablizing impact of such racist mobilization by monks - with state impunity. The last picture is the most influential monk Sitagu with Karen Border Guard Force (under Myanmar army's command) in Karen State where the army intelligence attempted to incite anti-Muslim violence, in collaboration with the border guard force and Karen monks). (Taken in March 2017) The first several pictures are Wirathu, very recent travels in Rakhine state including Rohingya towns.

I.Overview History is at risk of tragically repeating itself. Once again, conflict-wracked Somalia is faced with mass hunger, just six years after a man-made famine took the lives of 250,000 people, mostly children, and 25 years after another killed 300,000, triggering a U.S. and UN intervention without which many more would have perished. An estimated 6.2 million people – half the country’s population – are in dire need; over three million are in a “crisis” or “emergency” situation, faced with death due to hunger and disease. While governmental and international responses have been relatively swift and relief efforts better coordinated (in part, because of lessons learned from the 2011 famine), many former limitations and challenges remain. Today, Somalis are starving because funding is insufficient and because access denial and insecurity impede delivery; most of all, they are starving because chronic conflict has destroyed their savings and ability to cope with periodic drought. The government and its international partners must tackle these immediate impediments and do more to stabilise the country lest yet another famine loom in the not-too-distant future. As in 2011, the epicentre of the current humanitarian crisis is south-central Somalia where Al-Shabaab, a violent Islamist insurgency, and localised clan conflicts have compounded the drought’s impact, undermined subsistence farming and cereal production, and led to crippling inflation and skyrocketing food prices, as well as mass displacement. Pockets in northern Puntland and Somaliland have also been badly hit, though the situation is far less grim than in the south. Greater international assistance is urgently needed but will not be enough. A central cause of the crisis is access restrictions, provoked all at once by Al-Shabaab-orchestrated violence and insecurity, increased numbers of checkpoints on major aid supply routes, bureaucratic impediments and hefty illicit fees that both limit reach and increase delivery costs. Muslim community leaders and clerics should seek to persuade Al-Shabaab to allow access to areas under its control. But access restrictions are also the work of clan militias and disgruntled government and federal state forces engaging in predatory behaviour and routinely erecting barriers on major highways to extort money. The federal government and federal member states need, therefore, to pressure them too: through negotiations with clan militias if feasible, by considering military options to dismantle the checkpoints and provide armed escorts to relief convoys if necessary. And the federal government and federal member states should ease official impediments and red tape, which further constrain access. With a massive number of vulnerable people on the move in remote areas, the federal government and federal member states will need to do more to assist them and, in particular, curb rampant sexual violence in displaced peoples’ camps. These are all important steps, but to get beyond palliatives and find a more sustainable solution, the government will need to tackle the conflict itself, which remains the principal trigger and contributor to this unfolding humanitarian catastrophe: by improving governance; taking steps to address the division of power and resources among the central government and member states in a permanent constitution; and promoting countrywide clan reconciliation. II.Conflict, Drought, Displacement, Access Denial and Hunger A.An Acute Humanitarian Crisis Since the central state’s collapse in 1991, Somalia has been wracked by acute humanitarian crises of varying intensity and experienced two major famines – in 1992-1993 and 2011-2012. A combination of protracted armed conflict and climatic as well as environmental stresses has made the country highly vulnerable to periodic large-scale famine. The immediate cause of the current crisis is extensive and prolonged drought provoked by two consecutive years of failed Deyr (October-December) and Gu (April-June) rains. This triggered a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale unprecedented since 2011. Subsistence farming in the Shabelle and Juba river valleys has all but collapsed; prices of staple grains and legumes (maize, sorghum and beans) have doubled; and millions of livestock have perished. Deforestation (partly fuelled by the charcoal trade), soil erosion, coupled with diminishing volumes of water in the three major rivers – Shabelle, Janale and Juba – in turn have severely undermined subsistence farming in the fertile riverine belts. Somalis also blame insufficient local production of traditional coarse grains on land grabbing by businessmen connected to powerful clans and the switch to cash crops, such as lemons and sesame seed, especially in Lower Shabelle. In many urban centres in south-central Somalia food is increasingly scarce and available only at prices internally displaced persons (IDPs) and the very poor simply cannot afford. In an effort not to further undermine the regional market (with free relief food that disincentives farmers from planting more crops), and because it is more efficient, a number of aid agencies, among them USAID, UKAid and ACF (Action Contre la Faim) are sending small sums of money directly to needy families via mobile phones. The drought situation is not about to improve. Despite the onset of Gu rains in April in some parts of Somalia, experts predict the prolonged dry spell will persist. Some 6.2 million people are in dire need of assistance and nearly 600,000 have been displaced since November 2016. The bulk live in makeshift camps in Baidoa and Mogadishu and are increasingly desperate. Overcrowding and poor sanitation incubates infectious diseases like cholera and measles. In some of the camps, “gatekeepers” masquerading as “camp elders” are beginning to obstruct aid deliveries and extort bribes. Hundreds of thousands of victims of previous displacements also live precariously in cities and bigger towns. What stands in the way of a more effective and sustainable response to this humanitarian emergency are not acts of God or of nature. It is the intractable conflict that Somalia has experienced since the early 1990s. True, aid agencies are now able to reach close to two million vulnerable people. But they continue to face enormous challenges in meeting their target of reaching 5.5 million, because many areas are inaccessible and insecure. B.Al-Shabaab Checkpoints and Access Denial Al-Shabaab maintains an active military presence in much of the south’s drought-stricken countryside, and its violence and other destabilising activities constitute the greatest impediment to the delivery of relief to drought victims. The group routinely launches deadly assaults on troops of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), Somalia Federal Government (SFG) and federal member states; runs “security checkpoints” on major routes; and uses a variety of coercive tactics to prevent people from leaving and block access to aid agencies. Al-Shabaab’s complex and fraught relationship with humanitarian agencies operating in south-central Somalia was not always hostile. Prior to the 2011 famine, a few of its top commanders, notably Mukhtar Robow, cultivated cordial ties with relief agencies, granted them limited access after payment of “fees” and used their influence to secure release of abducted aid workers. But the 2011 famine coincided with two significant setbacks for Al-Shabaab: first, a major AMISOM offensive as a result of which the movement lost key urban strongholds in rapid succession; second, increased U.S. attacks using drones and special operations forces targeting its top leadership. An increasingly paranoid Al-Shabaab severed links to relief agencies and banned foreign aid agencies and their local partners from its territory, accusing them of espionage. In February and March 2017, large numbers of drought-stricken families began spontaneously leaving areas Al-Shabaab controlled in Bay and Bakool, as well as the Shabelle and Juba river valleys in search of relief assistance in federal and state government-controlled territory. This raised speculation that the militant group might be softening its uncompromising attitude toward foreign aid, perhaps because of the gravity of the situation and criticism it endured when it blocked Western food aid during the 2011 famine. These assumptions proved misplaced. Al-Shabaab blocked the exodus through coercion and by providing its own relief to hungry communities, arguably because of its heightened sense of insecurity and vulnerability – a realisation that mass depopulation might expose it to aerial and ground attacks. Today, Al-Shabaab continues to hold drought victims hostage by blocking international organisations, the Somalia Federal Government and local NGOs from delivering aid, even though territories under Al-Shabaab’s control in south-central Somalia are among the most severely affected. Worse, those found with Western-donated food and items risk arrest. In one such incident in the town of Waajid (Bay Region), in April, Al-Shabaab detained a group of people transporting relief food on donkey carts, burned the food and issued an edict warning against accepting handouts from “crusaders and apostates” (a reference to foreigners and the Somali government). The fate of those who were arrested remains unknown. But this incident, together with an April improvised explosive device (IED) attack on a UN World Food Programme (WFP) convoy in Mogadishu’s KM-3 district, suggests Al-Shabaab may be intent on using violence to disrupt aid operations. Still, Al-Shabaab has sought to mollify critics and stem the exodus of people fleeing hunger and water shortage in areas it controls. To that end, it recently launched its own parallel relief effort to provide livestock, food, water and even money – collected from compulsory donations imposed on businesses and individuals across all Somali towns – to drought-stricken Somalis. But while its effectiveness is hard to gauge, Al-Shabaab clearly could not single-handedly stave off such large-scale famine and any speculation that the group may be amenable, through negotiations, to open up areas under its control to aid agencies seems at the very least premature. If anything, major military setbacks since 2011 and the relentless U.S. drone campaign targeting its leadership have made the group even more militant and suspicious of Western relief agencies. Nor have expectations that Al-Shabaab might be more charitable toward Muslim relief agencies been borne out. Its hostility vis-à-vis international aid efforts no longer distinguishes between Western and Muslim NGOs; the group deems Turkish and United Arab Emirates (UAE) personnel and facilities legitimate targets. As long as there is no dramatic deterioration in the coming months and it can keep a lid on the hunger crisis through its own parallel aid and coercion, and as long as no mass deaths occur under its watch, Al-Shabaab will likely continue to rebuff calls for dialogue to grant access to humanitarian agencies. C.Clan Conflicts: Insecurity, Checkpoints and Access Denial Al-Shabaab is not the only non-state armed actor whose actions have a direct impact on the humanitarian crisis. Parts of the country remain trapped in unresolved inter-clan conflicts. These tensions are typically exacerbated in times of drought when massive numbers of people and livestock move across traditional clan “boundaries” in search of water and pasture. Pre-existing clan disputes tend to resurface, sometimes resulting in sporadic, low-level clashes among clan militias. This is particularly true in Sool and Sanaag regions (northern Somalia) as well as Hiiraan, Galgadud, Mudug Lower and Middle Shabelle in south-central Somalia. A series of clashes in the contested town of Galkacyo in north-central Somalia in the last two years triggered a massive displacement, with estimates ranging between 75,000 and 100,000, and a humanitarian crisis. Clan grievances and conflicts often occur in areas marked by contested sub-national boundaries and in territories better endowed with resources such as water and infrastructure (mostly roads, as well as airports and harbours). In the past, traditional elders brokered temporary local truces among warring clans. Some new federal member states have since reduced the elders’ role in a bid to control local reconciliation and peacebuilding efforts (and to attract donor funding for such endeavours), but without replicating the credible or effective mechanisms required to manage conflicts over resources, especially water wells and reservoirs. In many instances, predatory/criminal clan militias as well as rogue security elements belonging to the federal states exploit these localised conflicts, erecting checkpoints on major routes to serve as “toll stations” as a means of extracting money. III.Preying on IDPs and Vulnerable Communities Many Somali actors prey on IDPs and others who lack protection from powerful clans, in effect profiting from conditions of acute need and helping perpetuate them. These include in particular so-called leaders who claim to represent needy communities as well as criminals. There is also a genuine risk of exploitation by corrupt officials, although to date there has been no credible report of corrupt practices related to the current relief effort. At a minimum, the donor community should intensify its focus on Somali anti-corruption institutions and civil society organisations. If leaders suspected of corruption cannot be held accountable in Somalia, consideration should be given to their being prosecuted by governments of countries in which they hold dual citizenship. A.Exploitation of IDPs Most IDPs, both new and older, live in makeshift camps in major cities and towns. With few if any employment opportunities, they typically survive on remittances from relatives abroad and international assistance. In some camps, so-called gatekeepers masquerading as camp elders manipulate aid deliveries and extort bribes. Likewise, many IDPs face abuse at the hands of government and private actors, who often have links to local authorities, business people and militias. Beatings and rape are reportedly common. Awareness of such dynamics would help aid agencies mitigate the power that predatory officials and private gatekeepers exercise over vulnerable communities by investigating allegations of abuse and orienting assistance directly to individuals and their families, notably via cash transfers, rather than to communities. B.Violence against Women Somalia ranks as one of the most inhospitable country for women, a situation compounded by hunger, conflict and mass displacement. In the wake of the drought, and while precise data is lacking, reports suggest rape and other forms of sexual violence are widespread. Girls and women in displacement camps and those who have fled hunger-stricken villages on foot in remote areas are particularly at risk. As a result, the government has deployed additional police and special gender protection personnel to the camps. But more is needed. In particular, parliament ought to pass more stringent laws criminalising rape and ending the traditional practice (derived from xeer customs) of settling rape cases though clan negotiations that typically entail providing compensation to the victim, often in the form of a marriage offer. This is symptomatic of a far wider problem. While the short-term focus ought to be on measures aimed at curbing sexual violence in IDP camps and amending rape laws, any sustainable answer will require Somalia Federal Government efforts to promote and institutionalise greater protection for women. Newly elected legislators – of 283, 63 are women – have an historic opportunity to seek change in this area. IV.Responses A.International Response Donors and humanitarian agencies, including the UN, were better prepared and quicker to respond to warnings of impending famine in early 2017. Since January, the UN estimates that the Somalia humanitarian appeal received “unprecedented levels of funding”, with close to $600 million raised in direct donations or pledges. In early March, the UN launched an $825 million appeal. Although precise figures remain unclear, the overall funding gap has substantially narrowed in recent weeks, thanks notably to significant pledges from the UK, Japan and Germany. Turkey and UAE likewise significantly upped their aid operations, typically conducted outside the UN aid system. The #TurkishAirlinesHelpSomalia and #LoveArmyforSomalia social media campaigns garnered the support of many international celebrities, helped draw attention to the food crisis and raised more than $1 million. Turkish Airlines eventually fulfilled its promise and delivered 60 tons of humanitarian aid to Mogadishu. More recently, a campaign by the Emirates Red Crescent Society reportedly raised $45 million for drought relief. Altogether a massive emergency relief operation is underway bringing together many foreign and local NGOs. Improvements in coordination and management of humanitarian operations partly reflect lessons learned from the 2011 famine. The “Access Taskforce”, set up in 2015 by aid agencies operating in Somalia to negotiate better access with the patchwork of different authorities and minimise official red tape, helped create far more favourable aid delivery conditions. That said, coverage varies regionally, with better results in most of the north east and north west, and more limited ones in the south-central region. B.Domestic Response So far, President Mohammed Abdullahi “Farmajo” and his government have demonstrated strong leadership in addressing the drought emergency. The president convened a major meeting of all stakeholders in Mogadishu just days after his late February election; he put Prime Minister Hassan Kheyre in charge of government efforts; and the government set up a humanitarian affairs ministry and National Drought Committee to coordinate all relief efforts in Mogadishu and in the federal member states – developments welcomed by donors and relief agencies, even though they recognise that the government currently lacks both capacity and revenue to do much more than coordinate. Other actors have lent a hand. In a symbolic gesture, the Somali Federal Parliament donated 50 per cent of presidential candidate registration fees totalling $360,000 to the drought committee. Students have also been encouraged to donate a minimum of $10 each. Private Somali citizens are pitching in. Companies and businesspeople likewise have contributed significantly to the relief campaign. The most significant local endeavour has been the Caawi Walaal campaign initiated by local and diaspora Somali activists; it has raised thousands of dollars and its volunteers provide water and food to some of the country’s remotest parts which are inaccessible to traditional relief agencies. V.What is Needed With famine looming, donors should urgently provide additional funds. Because the hunger crisis is largely fuelled by high food prices – indeed, many families are starving even as markets brim with imported foodstuff – aid agencies ought to scale up the practice of transferring small sums of money to such families via mobile phones. But while necessary, such steps will serve as little more than a (critical) palliative if others are not taken in parallel to aim at the man-made causes of the crisis. These include: Bringing down roadblocks: The federal government and federal member states, supported by clan elders, should engage clan militias that routinely erect checkpoints on arterial highways critical for the supply of aid to drought victims. Where negotiations fail, legitimate authorities should explore the option of military steps to dismantle checkpoints and provide armed escorts to relief convoys. Easing bureaucratic restrictions: The federal government and federal member states should work with the Access Taskforce (an umbrella body established in November 2015 that brings together aid agencies in Somalia) to ease official restrictions and red tape impeding humanitarian operations. Cracking down on crimes of sexual violence: The federal government and federal member states should curb rampant sexual violence in camps for displaced people by strengthening policing, including deploying more women police officers. Tackling the roots of chronic conflict: Ultimately, only by addressing Somalia’s chronic conflicts can the recurring threat of food insecurity and famine be tackled in a sustainable fashion. As Crisis Group has argued more extensively elsewhere, this will require at a minimum that the federal and state governments, supported by donors, combat large-scale corruption and begin to deliver public services, particularly security, at all levels; finalise constitutional negotiations regarding the allocation of power and authority between the central government and federal member states; and restart the stalled national reconciliation process among Somali clans, focusing from the bottom up. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 International Crisis Group

The list of 60 ministers and deputy ministers was announced on state television in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on Tuesday. President Joseph Kabila kept the same people from his previous government in charge of key ministries, including foreign affairs, interior, justice and mines. In an agreement signed with the opposition last December, Kabila was allowed to stay in power beyond the end of his term that month, so long as he held elections before the end of 2017. In response to Tuesday's announcement, the main opposition bloc immediately called on Kabila to name a government that respected that December agreement. "This government is illegitimate and we don't recognise it," Martin Fayulu, president of the Engagement for Citizenship and Development (ECIDE) party, told Reuters. "There is no other roadmap besides the accord," he said. "If the accord is dead, Kabila has to leave," Fayulu added. A premier named instead of election day? Last month Kabila named Bruno Tshibala, a former member of the country's largest opposition party, as his new prime minister. In March, talks with the opposition had broken down when Kabila refused to confirm the bloc's choice for prime minister. Last year, there were violent protests over the agreement for the election delay and security forces killed dozens of people. There are concerns that the DRC could slip back into the civil wars of 20 years ago which left hundreds of thousands dead. Kabila has been president of the DRC since January 2001 when he took over 10 days after his father, President Laurent Kabila was shot dead by one of his teenage bodyguards. Kabila won elections in 2006 and 2011 and his term was due to expire last December but in September, electoral authorities announced elections would not be held until early 2018. UN peacekeepers patrol in Kasai-central Ongoing conflict, child soldiers and refugees Uganda and Rwanda have long been accused of supporting rebel forces acting against Kabila. Rival militias with varying loyalties have been active for decades, particularly in the mineral-rich east of the country, but there has been increasing violence in the Kasai region in central Congo in recent months. Rein Paulsen, who heads operations in the DRC for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said on Monday there had been a sharp increase in the number of civilians displaced by fighting over the last 15 months, to a total of 3.7 million. Nearly 1.9 million children under five years of age are severely malnourished in the DRC, Paulsen said. Two UN researchers and their Congolese interpreter went missing in March when they were looking into recent large-scale violence and alleged human rights violations by the Congolese army and local militia groups. Their bodies were found two weeks later in Kasai-Central province. The UN has almost 19,000 troops deployed in Congo, its largest and costliest peacekeeping mission. The DRC is a major source of minerals, including diamonds, gold, cobalt, zinc and tin, especially in the east where they are extracted in small mines, many of them under the control of armed groups. jm/kms (Reuters, EFE) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Deutsche Welle

UK-based rights activists and multi-ethnic refugees from Myanmar have held a rally to protest the City of London’s honoring of Myanmar's de facto leader. The protesters denounced Aung San Suu Kyi’s inaction and silence towards grave human rights abuses against the Rohingya Muslims. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 PressTV

Demonstrators protest outside of London’s Guildhall while Daw Aung San Suu Kyi received the Freedom of the City award. / Sally Kantar / The Irrawaddy Activists and refugees demonstrated as State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was presented with the Freedom of the City of London award on Monday, calling the recognition “disappointing” in light of ongoing abuses against ethnic and religious minorities, journalists and rights activists in Burma. “I’m so disappointed. She needs to stand on her moral ground—people have been dying, people have been raped,” said Ko Aung, an 88-Generation student activist and former security assistant of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who, before moving to the UK nearly 20 years ago, spent seven years as a political prisoner in Burma. Along with the Kachin National Organization (KNO), Burma Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK), and the charity Restless Beings, Ko Aung helped organize Monday’s demonstration in central London. It was attended by around 40 people who opposed the award, citing reports of abuses in Burma which they say have continued since the elected National League for Democracy-led (NLD) government took office more than one year ago. Demonstrators protest outside of London’s Guildhall while Daw Aung San Suu Kyi received the Freedom of the City award. (Photo: Sally Kantar / The Irrawaddy) Chanting “Aung San Suu Kyi, shame on you,” they stood on the chilly London street corner for nearly three hours, holding signs calling for a release of political prisoners, a halt to religious hate speech, and an end to military violence against different ethnic nationalities, including the Kachin, Ta’ang (Palaung), Rohingya and Shan. “We have a chance to cooperate here. In Burma, we had no chance,” said Ring Du Lachyung, chairperson of the KNO, regarding the attendance of demonstrators from various religious and ethnic backgrounds. “We are the same victims of military perpetrators,” he added. Ring Du Lachyung of the KNO holds a sign the London protest. (Photo: Sally Kantar / The Irrawaddy) The Freedom of the City honor, which dates back nearly 800 years, was awarded to Daw Aung Suu Kyi in a private ceremony in London’s Guildhall, to which a spokesperson for the city of London confirmed to The Irrawaddy that no media was invited. Fellow Nobel Peace laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela have also received the same award. Ring Du Lachyung told The Irrawaddy at the protest that he objected to the State Counselor receiving a “freedom” award from the city of London, when, “in reality, they don’t recognize the freedom of the Kachin.” “The UK government should stand with us, but they stand with her,” said Daw Khin Hla, a former schoolteacher from conflict-torn Buthidaung Township in Arakan State and current member of BROUK, on why she had decided to protest the event, adding, “they aren’t accepting our suffering.” The State Counselor has come under increasing international criticism for a stalled peace process with ethnic armed groups, continued military clashes and displacement of civilians in the country’s north, and increased arrests of journalists under the country’s defamation law. At an EU press conference on May 2, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also said that she would “disassociate” from a United Nations fact-finding mission mandated to investigate recent reports of rape, extrajudicial killings, arson and torture by security forces against the Rohingya community in Arakan State in late 2016 and early 2017. In an April interview with the BBC, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi rejected assertions that crimes against the Muslim minority in northern Arakan State amounted to ethnic cleansing, and her government has repeatedly described the issues as an “internal affair.” Two counter-protesters at the London demonstration echoed these sentiments and said they had come to “support Daw Aung San Suu Kyi” and to “condemn” the protest. Two counter demonstrators hold signs in support of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. (Photo: Sally Kantar / The Irrawaddy) “Aung San Suu Kyi is our legitimate leader,” said Htein Lin, who came to London as a refugee in 2007, but denounced the Rohingya who have also sought asylum in the UK, saying, “they are not a real nationality.” ‘Screened From Criticism’ Daw Aung San Suu Kyi arrived in London on Friday night—after previously visiting Belgium, the Vatican and Italy—and, according to Burmese state media, was met by a delegation at Heathrow airport, including U Kyaw Zwa Min, Burma’s ambassador to the UK. When The Irrawaddy contacted the Burmese embassy in London to inquire about the State Counselor’s visit, this reporter was told that the embassy knew “nothing” of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s schedule or public engagements during her trip. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is reportedly staying at The Dorchester hotel for the duration of her time in the British capital. It is the same establishment in which her father, the late independence leader Gen Aung San, and his delegation stayed in January 1947 during the trip in which he negotiated an agreement with then Prime Minister Clement Attlee guaranteeing independence for Burma by within one year. Weeks later, he signed the Panglong Agreement in Shan State, promising ethnic nationalities equality and autonomy within a federal Union. It is said that during his weeks at the establishment 70 years ago, Aung San invited members of the Burmese community in London to The Dorchester to share meals, music and memories of their homeland. Activists have noted that his daughter’s trip—her third to the UK in the last five years—has been considerably more guarded. State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi—in pink, right—arrives at the venue for the ceremony in which she was given the Freedom of the City of London award. (Photo: Sally Kantar / The Irrawaddy) Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is scheduled to meet “select” members of the Burmese community on Tuesday, but at the time of reporting it remained unclear who would be attending the event. Not invited, said those at the protest, are members of the Burmese Muslim and the Kachin communities in London. Ko Aung, who remembers “working tirelessly” for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s release when she was under 15 years of military-imposed house arrest, met her during her trip to the UK in 2012, but will not be attending Tuesday’s gathering. Mark Farmaner, director of advocacy organization Burma Campaign UK (BCUK), which was not involved with Monday’s protest, confirmed to The Irrawaddy that his organization had also not been invited to any events relating to the State Counselor’s London visit. “[The Burmese embassy] is not making official approaches to community organizations,” he said in an email. “She won’t be meeting a representative group and is being screened from criticism.” BCUK published ten questions in a statement for British officials to consider during the State Counselor’s trip to London. It highlighted the continued detention of political prisoners, restrictions on aid to communities displaced by conflict in Arakan, Kachin, and Shan states, an increase in prosecutions under the country’s Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law, the continued use of a visa ban list affecting diaspora activists, and the rejection of the United Nations fact-finding mission. Reuters reported that the State Counselor met the UK’s Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace for lunch on Friday, and that they were joined by other members of the British royal family. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Irrawaddy

The militia attacks near Nierteti (western Central Darfur) reported today by Radio Dabanga are identical to those that were occurring fourteen years ago, down to such grim details as the cutting down of mature fruit trees to ensure there is nothing to come back to in the destroyed villages. Genocidal violence has at times ebbed over the past fourteen years but has never ceased. Photograph of village burning in Darfur 2005 following Janjaweed attack; photograph taken by military observer and former U.S. Marine Brian Steidle The UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) is completely powerless to protect non-Arab/African civilians under assault, even if it were inclined to, which it clearly is not. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF), responsible for the reported attacks, have been formally incorporated into the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and thus acknowledged and supported in ways Khartoum never dared with the “Janjaweed,” even when these less well-organized militia groups were working hand-in-glove with the SAF. Denial was essential, as UN Security Council Resolution 1556, under Chapter 7 authority, “demanded” that Khartoum disarm the “Janjaweed” and brings its leaders to justice: Resolution 1556 (2004) Adopted by the Security Council at its 5015th meeting, on 30 July 2004 | http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1556%20(2004) Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, [the UN Security Council]… §7 Demands that the Government of Sudan fulfill its commitments to disarm the Janjaweed militias and apprehend and bring to justice Janjaweed leaders and their associates who have incited and carried out human rights and international humanitarian law violations and other atrocities, and further requests the Secretary General to report in 30 days, and monthly thereafter, to the Council on the progress or lack thereof by the Government of Sudan on this matter and expresses its intention to consider further actions, including measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations. Massive violence and human displacement have been continuous in Darfur, despite occasional ebbing Now confident of victory in its genocidal counter-insurgency in Darfur, the regime feels bold enough to praise and embrace the RSF. There could be no better example of UN and African Union hypocrisy, weakness, and fecklessness. The refusal by these international bodies now even to acknowledge the continuing ethnically-targeted violence directed against the non-Arab/African tribal populations of Darfur is the very face of the UN and African Union politically. The international community as a whole—including the EU, the U.S., Japan, India, the countries of South America, and others—is content to allow the lack of a human rights reporting presence and the total absence of independent journalists in Darfur to justify indifference and willful blindness to catastrophic human suffering and destruction. The same regime that now formally employs the Rapid Support Forces in Darfur is described by former U.S. Special Envoy for Sudans Princeton Lyman as capable of “carrying out reform via constitutional democratic measures”: “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 ) Former U.S. Special Envoy for Sudans Princeton Lyman still believes that the Khartoum regime can “carry out reform via constitutional democratic measures.” Such gross and preposterous mendacity defines U.S. Sudan policy to this day, and increasingly the “international community” as a whole. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Eric Reeves

IMMEDIATE RELEASE 5 May 2017 London: On May 8 (12 noon-2 pm), UK-based rights activists and multi-ethnic refugees from Burma will be holding a rally at the Guildhall to protest the City of London honouring the Myanmar State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, with its Freedom of the City award. The “Freedom of the City” award was first recorded in AD 1237 and connected to the ancient trade associations. Honourees are “enrolled in a ceremony in Guildhall, when they receive a guide to conducting their lives in an honourable fashion”. The protest organizers say Aung San Suu Kyi has discarded her oft-touted Buddhist principles of compassion and truthfulness or universal human rights since entering into a partnership with the country’s most powerful military a year ago. In its editorial on 3 May, the Guardian wrote, “when Aung San Suu Kyi was finally able to collect her Nobel peace prize in 2012, the committee’s chairman described how her “firmness of principle” in the struggle for human rights and democracy had made her “a moral leader for the whole world”. Since taking power in Myanmar, the former political prisoner’s moral credibility has been vastly diminished by her failure to even acknowledge the brutal persecution of the Rohingya minority in Rakhine state. A dozen fellow Nobel peace laureates have lamented her inaction in the face of “a human tragedy amounting to ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. Ring Du Lachyung, Chairman of the Kachin National Organization - UK, a well-known Kachin diaspora group, accuses the former Burmese human rights icon of “being complicit” in the Burma army’s war crimes against his Kachin people in Northern and Eastern Burma. “Since her first ever return to London in 2012, she has adamantly refused to condemn the Burmese military’s indiscriminate violence against our civilian communities including rape, air strikes, and shelling of churches,” said Ring Du. He stressed that “Suu Kyi chooses to ignore the fact that her military partners are the aggressor, who are attacking our (Kachin) communities in our ancestral homeland adjacent to India and China, in order to control our jade mines, fell our teak forests, extract hydropower from our rivers for generating and exporting electricity to China, and take over strategic border trade routes – without giving anything back to our Kachin people.” Ko Aung, a prominent Burmese exile and former political prisoner, who has known the Burmese leader since he was a young university student activist during the country’s nationwide uprisings in 1988, said, “Suu Kyi has betrayed the cause of human rights in the name of political pragmatism. Her pragmatic politics have ruined her reputation without ushering in any tangible improvement in the lives of ordinary people or improving the general human rights conditions for democracy activists.” Under Aung San Suu Kyi’s watch, human rights conditions are worsening not just for ethnic and religious minorities but also for Burmese human rights activists and journalists. Despite the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in ethnic minority regions and the persecution of journalists and rights activists, British companies are eager to expand their business ties with the Aung San Suu Kyi government. Reuters reported that the Anglo-Dutch consumer good maker Unilever (ULVR.L) (UNc.AS) just signed an expansive deal in Myanmar in order to triple its current annual sale revenues of 100 million euros (84.75 million pounds) by 2020. Ring Du Lachyung, Kachin National Organization UK, 077 9235 7887 Tun Khin, Burmese Rohingya Organization UK, 078 8871 866 Marbur Ahmed, Restlessbeings, UK, 075 0610 0785 Ko Aung, Burmese dissident in exile & former Burmese political prisoner, 077 6209 4562

It is not often you get the chance to meet a man who holds a place in history like Ben Ferencz. He's 97 years old, barely 5 feet tall, and he served as prosecutor of what's been called the biggest murder trial ever. The courtroom was Nuremberg; the crime, genocide; the defendants, a group of German SS officers accused of committing the largest number of Nazi killings outside the concentration camps -- more than a million men, women, and children shot down in their own towns and villages in cold blood. Ferencz is the last Nuremberg prosecutor alive today. But he isn't content just to be part of 20th century history -- he believes he has something important to offer the world right now. It is not often you get the chance to meet a man who holds a place in history like Ben Ferencz. He's 97 years old, barely 5 feet tall, and he served as prosecutor of what's been called the biggest murder trial ever. The courtroom was Nuremberg; the crime, genocide; the defendants, a group of German SS officers accused of committing the largest number of Nazi killings outside the concentration camps -- more than a million men, women, and children shot down in their own towns and villages in cold blood. Ferencz is the last Nuremberg prosecutor alive today. But he isn't content just to be part of 20th century history -- he believes he has something important to offer the world right now. Benjamin Ferencz: You oughta get some more friends. Watching Ben Ferencz during his daily swim, his gym workout and his morning push-up regimen is to realize he isn't just the sunniest man we've ever met -- he may also be the fittest. And that's just the beginning. This is Ferencz making his opening statement in the Nuremberg courtroom 70 years ago. Ben Ferencz in court: The charges we have brought accuse the defendants of having committed crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg trials after World War II were historic -- the first international war crimes tribunals ever held. Hitler's top lieutenants were prosecuted first. Then a series of subsequent trials were mounted against other Nazi leaders, including 22 SS officers responsible for killing more than a million people -- not in concentration camps -- but in towns and villages across Eastern Europe. They would never have been brought to justice were it not for Ben Ferencz. Lesley Stahl: You look so young. Benjamin Ferencz: I was so young. I was 27 years old. Lesley Stahl: Had you prosecuted trials before? Benjamin Ferencz: Never in my life. I don't— Lesley Stahl: Come on. Benjamin Ferencz: --recall if I'd ever been in a courtroom actually. Ferencz had immigrated to the U.S. as a baby, the son of poor Jewish parents from a small town in Romania. He grew up in a tough New York City neighborhood where his father found work as a janitor. Benjamin Ferencz: When I was taken to school at the age of seven, I couldn't speak English-- spoke Yiddish at home. And I was very small. And so they wouldn't let me in. Lesley Stahl: So you didn't speak English 'til you were eight? Benjamin Ferencz: That's correct Lesley Stahl: Could you read? Benjamin Ferencz: No, on the contrary. The silent movies always had writing on it. And I would ask my father, "Wazukas," in Yiddish, "What does it say? What does it say?" He couldn't read it, either. But Ferencz learned quickly. He became the first in his family to go to college, then got a scholarship to Harvard Law School. But during his first semester, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and he, like many classmates, raced to enlist. He wanted to be a pilot, but the Army Air Corps wouldn't take him. Benjamin Ferencz: They said, "No, you're too short. Your legs won't reach the pedals." The Marines, they just looked at me and said, "Forget it, kid." So he finished at Harvard then enlisted as a private in the Army. Part of an artillery battalion, he landed on the beach at Normandy and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. Toward the end of the war, because of his legal training, he was transferred to a brand new unit in General Patton's Third Army, created to investigate war crimes. As U.S. forces liberated concentration camps, his job was to rush in and gather evidence. Ferencz told us he is still haunted by the things he saw. And the stories he heard in those camps. Benjamin Ferencz: A father who, his son told me the story. The father had died just as we were entering the camp. And the father had routinely saved a piece of his bread for his son, and he kept it under his arm at… He kept it under his arm at night so the other inmates wouldn't steal it, you know. So you see these human stories which are not -- they're not real. They're not real. But they were real. Ferencz came home, married his childhood sweetheart and vowed never to set foot in Germany again. But that didn't last long. General Telford Taylor, in charge of the Nuremberg trials, asked him to direct a team of researchers in Berlin, one of whom found a cache of top-secret documents in the ruins of the German foreign ministry. Benjamin Ferencz: He gave me a bunch of binders, four binders. And these were daily reports from the Eastern Front-- which unit entered which town, how many people they killed. It was classified, so many Jews, so many gypsies, so many others-- Ferencz had stumbled upon reports sent back to headquarters by secret SS units called Einsatzgruppen, or action groups. Their job had been to follow the German army as it invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, and kill Communists, Gypsies and especially Jews. Benjamin Ferencz: They were 3,000 SS officers trained for the purpose, and directed to kill without pity or remorse, every single Jewish man, woman, and child they could lay their hands on. Lesley Stahl: So they went right in after the troops? Benjamin Ferencz: That was their assignment, come in behind the troop, round up the Jews, kill 'em all. Only one piece of film is known to exist of the Einsatzgruppen at work. It isn't easy viewing… Benjamin Ferencz: Well, this is typical operation. Well, see here, this-- they rounded 'em up. They all have already tags on 'em. And they're chasing them. Lesley Stahl: They're making them run to their own death? Benjamin Ferencz: Yes. Yes. There's the rabbi coming along there. Just put 'em in the ditch. Shoot 'em there. You know, kick 'em in. Lesley Stahl: Oh, my God. Oh, my God. This footage came to light years later. At the time, Ferencz just had the documents, and he started adding up the numbers. Benjamin Ferencz: When I reached over a million people murdered that way, over a million people, that's more people than you've ever seen in your life, I took a sample. I got on the next plane, flew from Berlin down to Nuremberg, and I said to Taylor, "General, we've gotta put on a new trial." But the trials were already underway, and prosecution staff was stretched thin. Taylor told Ferencz adding another trial was impossible. Benjamin Ferencz: And I start screaming. I said, "Look. I've got here mass murder, mass murder on an unparalleled scale." And he said, "Can you do this in addition to your other work?" And I said, "Sure." He said, "OK. So you do it." And that's how 27-year-old Ben Ferencz became the chief prosecutor of 22 Einsatzgruppen commanders at trial number 9 at Nuremberg. Judge: How do you plead to this indictment, guilty or not guilty? Defendant: Nicht schuldig. Benjamin Ferencz: Standard routine, nicht schuldig. Not guilty. Judge: Guilty or not guilty? Defendant: Nicht schuldig. Lesley Stahl: They all say not guilty. Benjamin Ferencz: Same thing, not guilty. But Ferencz knew they were guilty and could prove it. Without calling a single witness, he entered into evidence the defendants' own reports of what they'd done. Exhibit 111: "In the last 10 weeks, we have liquidated around 55,000 Jews." Exhibit 179, from Kiev in 1941: "The city's Jews were ordered to present themselves… about 34,000 reported, including women and children. After they had been made to give up their clothing and valuables, all of them were killed, which took several days." Exhibit 84, from Einsatzgruppen D in March of 1942: Total number executed so far: 91,678. Einsatzgruppen D was the unit of Ferencz's lead defendant Otto Ohlendorf. He didn't deny the killings -- he had the gall to claim they were done in self-defense. Benjamin Ferencz: He was not ashamed of that. He was proud of that. He was carrying out his government's instructions. Lesley Stahl: How did you not hit him? Benjamin Ferencz: There was only one time I wanted to-- really. One of these-- my defendants said-- He gets up, and he says, "[GERMAN]," which is, "What? The Jews were shot? I hear it here for the first time." Boy, I felt if I'd had a bayonet I woulda jumped over the thing, and put a bayonet right through one ear, and let it come out the other. You know? You know? Lesley Stahl: Yeah. Benjamin Ferencz: That son of a bitch. Lesley Stahl: And you had his name down on a piece of— Benjamin Ferencz: And I've got-- I've got his reports of how many he killed. You know? Innocent lamb. Lesley Stahl: Did you look at the defendants' faces? Benjamin Ferencz: Defendants' face were blank, all the time. Defendants-- absolutely blank. They could-- like, they're waiting for a bus. Lesley Stahl: What was going on inside of you? Benjamin Ferencz: Of me? Lesley Stahl: Yeah. Benjamin Ferencz: I'm still churning. Lesley Stahl: To this minute? Benjamin Ferencz: I'm still churning. All 22 defendants were found guilty, and four of them, including Ohlendorf, were hanged. Ferencz says his goal from the beginning was to affirm the rule of law and deter similar crimes from ever being committed again. Lesley Stahl: Did you meet a lot of people who perpetrated war crimes who would otherwise in your opinion have been just a normal, upstanding citizen? Benjamin Ferencz: Of course, is my answer. These men would never have been murderers had it not been for the war. These were people who could quote Goethe, who loved Wagner, who were polite-- Lesley Stahl: What turns a man into a savage beast like that? Benjamin Ferencz: He's not a savage. He's an intelligent, patriotic human being. Lesley Stahl: He's a savage when he does the murder though. Benjamin Ferencz: No. He's a patriotic human being acting in the interest of his country, in his mind. Lesley Stahl: You don't think they turn into savages even for the act? Benjamin Ferencz: Do you think the man who dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was a savage? Now I will tell you something very profound, which I have learned after many years. War makes murderers out of otherwise decent people. All wars, and all decent people. So Ferencz has spent the rest of his life trying to deter war and war crimes by establishing an international court – like Nuremburg. He scored a victory when the international criminal court in The Hague was created in 1998. He delivered the closing argument in the court's first case. Lesley Stahl: Now, you've been at this for 50 years, if not more. We've had genocide since then. Benjamin Ferencz: Yes. Lesley Stahl: In Cambodia— Benjamin Ferencz: Going on right this minute, yes. Lesley Stahl: Going on right this minute in Sudan. Benjamin Ferencz: Yes. Lesley Stahl: We've had Rwanda, we've had Bosnia. You're not getting very far. Benjamin Ferencz: Well, don't say that. People get discouraged. They should remember, from me, it takes courage not to be discouraged. Lesley Stahl: Did anybody ever say that you're naive? Benjamin Ferencz: Of course. Some people say I'm crazy. Lesley Stahl: Are you naive here? Benjamin Ferencz: Well, if it's naive to want peace instead of war, let 'em make sure they say I'm naive. Because I want peace instead of war. If they tell me they want war instead of peace, I don't say they're naive, I say they're stupid. Stupid to an incredible degree to send young people out to kill other young people they don't even know, who never did anybody any harm, never harmed them. That is the current system. I am naive? That's insane. Ferencz is legendary in the world of international law, and he's still at it. He never stops pushing his message and he's donating his life savings to a Genocide Prevention Initiative at the Holocaust Museum. He says he's grateful for the life he's lived in this country, and it's his turn to give back. Lesley Stahl: You are such an idealist. Benjamin Ferencz: I don't think I'm an idealist. I'm a realist. And I see the progress. The progress has been remarkable. Look at the emancipation of woman in my lifetime. You're sitting here as a female. Look what's happened to the same-sex marriages. To tell somebody a man can become a woman, a woman can become a man, and a man can marry a man, they would have said, "You're crazy." But it's a reality today. So the world is changing. And you shouldn't-- you know-- be despairing because it's never happened before. Nothing new ever happened before. Lesley Stahl: Ben— Benjamin Ferencz: We're on a roll. Lesley Stahl: I can't— Benjamin Ferencz: We're marching forward. Lesley Stahl: Ben? I'm sitting here listening to you. And you're very wise. And you're full of energy and passion. And I can't believe you're 97 years old. Benjamin Ferencz: Well, I'm still a young man. Lesley Stahl: Clearly, clearly. Benjamin Ferencz: And I'm still in there fighting. And you know what keeps me going? I know I'm right. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(c) 2017 CBS News

Some deny a genocide ever occurred in Srebrenica. One survivor continues to live there to provide testimony of what happened. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 BBC News

In a meeting Thursday between Pope Francis and Myanmar's Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi, the two cemented their diplomatic relationship, agreeing to send ambassadors to each other's countries. “The Holy See and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, keen to promote bonds of mutual friendship, have jointly agreed to establish diplomatic relations at the level of Apostolic Nunciature, on behalf of the Holy See, and Embassy, on the part of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.” Aung San Suu Kyi is a Burmese diplomat, politician and author who currently serves as the State Counsellor and Foreign Minister of Myanmar. Before her rise to power, she spent much of her career under house arrest due to her push for human rights and democracy, which contradicted the military rule at the time. She first met with Pope Francis in October 2013 when she came to Rome to pick up an honorary citizenship she'd been awarded in 1994 but hadn't been able to retrieve. Just two years later, Pope Francis appointed Myanmar's first-ever cardinal, Charles Bo, in a clear show if his respect for the country and his preference for the peripheries. The move to officially establish diplomatic ties comes just two months Myanmar's parliament voted in March to make their country the 183rd nation to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Holy See. The proposal from the Vatican was postponed in February by the nuncio to Thailand, Archbishop Paul Tsang-in Nam, who also acts as a delegate to Myanmar. He then held a meeting with Cardinal Bo and Aung San Suu Kyi, resulting in the March announcement. While Aung San Suu Kyi and Pope Francis' meeting this morning likely focused on strengthening their diplomatic ties, mention was also likely made on the part of the Pope of the persecuted Rohingya minority, which he has spoken out on often. Rohingya people are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group largely from the Rakhine state of Burma, in west Myanmar. Since clashes began in 2012 between the state's Buddhist community and the long-oppressed Rohingya Muslim minority, some 125,000 Rohingya have been displaced, while more than 100,000 have fled Myanmar by sea. In order to escape forced segregation from the rest of the population inside rural ghettos, many of the Rohingya – who are not recognized by the government as a legitimate ethnic group or as citizens of Myanmar – have made the perilous journey at sea in hopes of evading persecution. In 2015, a number of Rohingya people – estimated to be in the thousands – were stranded at sea in boats with dwindling supplies while Southeastern nations such as Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia refuse to take them in. However, in recent months tens of thousands have fled to Bangladesh amid a military crackdown on insurgents in Myanmar's western Rakhine state. The horrifying stories recounted by the Rohingya include harrowing tales of rapes, killings and the burning of their houses. According to BBC News, despite claims of a genocide, a special government-appointed committee in Myanmar formed in January has investigated the situation, but found no evidence to support the allegations. In Bangladesh, however, the Rohingya have had little relief, since they are not recognized as refugees in the country. Since October, many who fled to Bangladesh have been detained and forced to return to the neighboring Rakhine state. Pope Francis first brought up the plight of the Rohingya people during an audience in 2015 with more than 1,500 members of the International Eucharistic Youth Movement. “Let’s think of those brothers of ours of the Rohingya,” he said. “They were chased from one country and from another and from another. When they arrived at a port or a beach, they gave them a bit of water or a bit to eat and were there chased out to the sea.” This, he told the youth, “is called killing. It’s true. If I have a conflict with you and I kill you, its war.” He brought them up again a month later in an interview with a Portuguese radio station, and he has consistently spoken out on behalf of the Rohingya in Angelus addresses, daily Masses or general audiences. Most recently, in his Feb. 8 general audience the Pope asked pilgrims to pray with him “for our brother and sister Rohingya. They were driven out of Myanmar, they go from one place to another and no one wants them.” “They are good people, peaceful people, they aren’t Christians, but they are good. They are our brothers and sisters. And they have suffered for years,” he said, noting that often members of the ethnic minority have been “tortured and killed” simply for carrying forward their traditions and Muslim faith. He then led pilgrims in praying an “Our Father” for the Rohingya, asking afterward St. Josephine Bakhita, herself a former salve, to intercede. So while the official establishment of diplomatic relations is a major step in terms of strengthening relations between the Holy See and Myanmar, there are murky waters that still need to be tread. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 catholic News Agency

More than half of Rohingya Muslim girls who fled violence in western Myanmar ended up becoming child brides, according to a United Nations survey that also showed widespread domestic abuse. Since 2012, violence and communal clashes in Myanmar's Rakhine state have forced more than 168,000 of the ethnic Muslim Rohingya minorities to flee, including a rising number of women and girls, according to the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR. In a survey of 85 Rohingya women and girls who have fled to India, Malaysia and Indonesia, UNHCR found about 60 percent married before the age of 18. The average age that they gave birth to their first child was 18. One in every three women and girls also said they were victims of domestic violence, according to UNHCR's 2016 Report on Mixed Movements in Southeast Asia. "We generally counsel them about their options and, if they agree, refer them to a partner or shelter that cares for vulnerable women," UNHCR Asia spokeswoman Vivian Tan told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. The growing number of Rohingya women and girls fleeing persecution in Buddhist-majority Myanmar has raised concern that they may be vulnerable to human trafficking, sexual exploitation and child marriage, activists say. UNHCR said the interviews with the 85 women in its latest report were to assess "continuing vulnerabilities" they face. There are about 8,000 Rohingya women and girls aged between 14 and 34 in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - the countries where the study was carried out late last year. The findings showed while the majority of the Rohingya girls in India said they chose their husbands, 76 percent in Malaysia said their marriage was arranged by families or brokers, giving rise to fears of human trafficking. Rights groups said they have seen an increase in the number of child brides among Rohingya refugees as violence in Rakhine worsened, with human traffickers selling girls to Rohingya men as brides. As Rohingya refugees are denied formal employment in many of the host countries, only 7 percent of the women polled said they were earning an income, even though two-thirds said they desired their own income. The plight of the Rohingya hit international headlines again in recent months after Myanmar security forces were accused of carrying out mass killings and gang rapes during their campaign against Rohingya insurgents. The military has denied the accusations. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Thomson Reuters Foundation

SAVE THE DATE: Oct. 19-21, 2017 Engaging with Communities for Justice 4th International Conference on Hate Studies 3rd floor, Hemmingson Center, Gonzaga University Spokane, Washington Presenter submission deadline: May 30, 2017 (Click here for submission form) Early attendee registration deadline: September 15, 2017 (Click here for registration form) This conference is one of the leading interdisciplinary academic forums on hate, related social problems, and ways to create socially just and inclusive communities. It convenes leading academics, journalists, law enforcement personnel, educators, representatives of governmental and non-governmental organizations, human rights experts, community organizers, activists, students, and others to discuss hatred and ways to engage communities with justice. Conference topics will address research, education, practice, and advocacy. If hate is understood better, the result can have real-world impact, including creating models for changes in society, government, culture and our individual and communal lives. For additional information, please visit the conference web site, or contact Dr. Kristine Hoover, Director for the Institute of Hate Studies atagainsthate@gonzaga.edu. The conference is sponsored by the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force, the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations, and the Gonzaga Institute of Hate Studies. -______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 JUSTUS & KARIN ROSENBERG FOUNDATION