The Obama administration—under three successive “Special Envoys for Sudan(s)”—has proved almost inconceivably misguided and destructive in addressing the many problems of Sudan---and not only genocide in Darfur (Obama himself used the word “genocide” repeatedly both as a senator, a presidential candidate, and early in his Presidency. His administration and special envoys have collectively encouraged the Khartoum regime to believe it will pay no significant price for its continuing wars on the marginalized people of Sudan, and they have badly failed in assessing the political and economic crises of the country as a whole. The recent column in the Sudan Tribune by current envoy Donald Booth (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article60908/) only continues eight years of deliberate and expedient misrepresentation of Sudan’s crises and the diplomatic tasks that confront not only the U.S. but the African Union, the UN, and the European Union. I’ll return to Booth’s central claim, one that implicitly suggests that the Khartoum regime (one of the “parties to the conflict,” in his diplo-speak) is beginning to move “toward peace” in Darfur—a claim for which there is not the slightest shred of real evidence: “[Abdul Wahid al Nur’s] refusal to negotiate has been a perennial problem for international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan, but it has become especially damaging as other parties to the conflict begin moving toward peace.” While I too have found Abdul Wahid thoroughly obdurate in conversation, the idea that he is the problem—that if only his “cooperation” could be secured Darfur’s massive crisis would be resolved—is simply perverse; it appears to be a last, desperate effort by the Obama administration to absolve itself of responsibility for the continuation of “genocide” over the entire eight years of Obama’s two terms as President of the United States. The Obama administration's current Special Envoy for the Sudans, Donald Booth But before looking in detail at the disgraceful dishonesty of Booth’s assertion, it is worth looking briefly at the destructive diplomatic handiwork of his two predecessors, also part of the Obama legacy. Air Force Major-General (ret.) Scott Gration Gration was appointed by Obama in March 2009 to address perhaps the single most difficult diplomatic challenge on the world scene: ongoing war in Darfur and the troubled move toward fulfillment of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA; January 2005) between Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army of South Sudan (as well as South Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Abyei). Gration had no knowledge of Sudan, no diplomatic experience, and had voted for George W. Bush in 2000, three years before Bush led the U.S. and Britain into the catastrophic invasion of Iraq. He had no Arabic or other relevant language skills. Air Force Major-General (ret.) Scott Gration---the embodiment of diplomatic incompetence He was completely befuddled by the challenge posed by Khartoum’s expulsion from Darfur (March 2009) of thirteen critical international nongovernmental humanitarian organizations, and the closing of three Sudanese NGOs. So over-matched was Gration that it fell to then-Senator and now Secretary of State John Kerry to handle the crisis, which he did in his typically expedient and disingenuous fashion. UN humanitarian officials informed me at the time that the expulsions and closures represented roughly 50 percent of total humanitarian capacity in Darfur; Kerry traveled to Khartoum and issued the following statement in April: Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate foreign relations committee and also representing Obama in Khartoum, has expanded administration disingenuousness by declaring (April 17, 2009): “We have agreement [with Khartoum] that in the next weeks we will be back to 100 percent [humanitarian] capacity,” said [Senator John] Kerry. (Reuters [el-Fasher], April 17, 2009) Kerry knew full well that such restoration of capacity was not even remotely logistically possible. But by framing it as an “agreement” with Khartoum, Kerry effectively made the crisis look manageable. No matter that the Khartoum regime had never abided by any such agreement—not one, not ever. The same has been true of Khartoum’s “Status of Forces Agreement” with the UN and African Union concerning UNAMID forces, guaranteed by the January 2008 “agreement” the right to move unhindered throughout Darfur. Relentless denial of access has defined UNAMID’s presence in Darfur from the day the agreement was signed. And full humanitarian capacity was never restored in Darfur, nor anything remotely close. On the contrary, Khartoum continued with its expulsions of humanitarian organizations and made access as difficult for humanitarians as it had for UNAMID. By the time Envoy Gration was actually working in office, he demonstrated extraordinary and dangerous ignorance on Darfur issues. He quickly sided with the regime on the question of early returns of displaced persons, without any understanding of the danger facing people forced to leave the relative security that the camps afforded. For that ignorance he was taken sharply to task by a humanitarian “Inter-Agency Management Group” (IAMG) in summer 2009: people who actually understood the situation on the ground in Darfur refused to be silent in the face of such dangerous statements as issued from Gration and his office. This was reported by the superb journalist for the Washington Post, Colum Lynch, on August 5, 2009 | http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503808.html/. With access to the notes from the IAMD of their meetings with Gration, I wrote in detail about their harsh assessment of the special envoy’s views (http://sudanreeves.org/2011/01/23/us-special-envoy-on-returns-of-displaced-persons-in-darfur-september-2009/). Undeterred by the evidence of his ignorance, Gration soon went on to display his thoughts about diplomacy with the hardened and supremely canny Khartoum regime: "We've got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries—they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement" (Washington Post, September 28, 2009 | http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092802336.html/) The fatuous, benighted, and dangerous character of dealing with ruthless génocidaires on such a basis can hardly be overstated. These words certainly encouraged Khartoum immensely in its continued ethnically-targeted campaign of destruction in Darfur, and set the stage for the events of late 2010 and early 2011 in the run-up to the Southern self-determination referendum. On Abyei in particular—joined by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry—Gration urged the government in Juba to “compromise” further on the boundaries of Abyei, despite the existence of a final and binding ruling on Abyei from the Permanent Court of Arbitration—binding arbitration that Khartoum had agreed to (July 2009) ​ This ruling was favorable to Khartoum and significantly reduced the area of Abyei entitled to participate in what was to have been a January 9, 2011 self-determination referendum, which would have seen an overwhelming vote to join South Sudan. But encouraged by Gration and others in the Obama administration, Khartoum had by the time of the referendum resolved to seize all of Abyei militarily, which it did—after substantial and clearly visible military preparation—on May 20, 2011 (for a complete timeline of events and decisions leading to this deeply threatening military action, see http://sudanreeves.org/2011/05/27/an-abyei-timeline-the-long-road-to-khartoums-military-invasion/). Princeton Lyman Just as destructive as Gration in the attitudes and policy views he espoused was Obama’s second special envoy, Princeton Lyman. Lyman was in charge of Sudan policy throughout the early months of 2011 and knew full well of Khartoum’s military preparations to seize Abyei. He said nothing of consequence, and after the actual seizure on May 20, also said nothing of significance—no demands that Khartoum withdraw militarily, specifying consequences if they did not. All that the U.S. and international community offered the people of Abyei, denied their right to a self-determination referendum as guaranteed by the CPA’s “Abyei Protocol,” was an Ethiopian brigade of peacekeepers, which has done little more than preserve the status quo. Unsurprising, emboldened by the entirely successful military seizure of Abyei, Khartoum soon after initiated hostilities in South Kordofan. The most consequential early violence was in the capital of the state, Kadugli. Almost from the first we had many highly credible reports—including from an Agence France-Presse correspondence on the scene—of mass killings of Nuba, the general name for the African tribal populations of the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan. House-to-house searches, traffic barricades, and arbitrary arrests of people of Nuba ethnicity defined these early days. So too did mass graves, capable of holding thousands of bodies. (For a lengthy interview of what we knew, when we knew it, and how we knew it, see | http://sudanreeves.org/2013/10/11/genocide-in-the-nuba-mountains-a-retrospective-on-what-we-knew-june-2011-2013/). Working at the time as an advisor to the Satellite Sentinel Project (http://www.satsentinel.org/), I had daily access not only to the photographs but expert military and forensic analysis. Even though our photographic resolution was limited by U.S. law, the findings were simply unambiguous. And yet Princeton Lyman denied the validity of these findings, refused to credit the reports coming from Kadugli, and allowed a Rwanda-like event to proceed without any U.S. condemnation. He went so far as to claim that our analysis of the clear evidence of mass graves was mistaken—that he had “other evidence.” But in early July 2011, the report of a UN human rights team that had been in Kadugli for the horrific killings of June 2011 was leaked (reportedly by the U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice). The lengthy report is an astonishing catalog of crimes and crimes against humanity by Khartoum’s forces, recognized as such by the UN human rights reporters. Their report should be required reading for any who wonder whether the Khartoum regime is likely to be swayed by “cookies and gold stars.” In the summer of 2011 Lyman continued his deeply, destructively disingenuous ways. In an interview with Margaret Warner of PBS’ “NewsHour” (June 28) Lyman told Warner: “the Nuba Mountain region in Southern Kordofan, where Northern forces have moved in and many residents have fled, is not in danger of becoming another Darfur. “Mountain people are fighting back and I don’t think the North is capable of dislodging large numbers of people on an ethnic basis from the Nuba Mountains,” he said. “Second, I’m not sure that’s the objective of the government, though local commanders may have a different point of view.” (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/sudan-envoy/) More than five years later this assessment is of course spectacularly in error—but even in June 2011, such an assessment required that Lyman overlook a host of evidence, including that in the UN report (to which he surely had access, at least of preliminary findings) and from the reports of countless Nuba fleeing to South Sudan. One chilling report of June 10, 2011 should certainly have caught Lyman’s attention: “Other [Nuba] have fled to the Nuba mountains, where they are being hunted down like animals by helicopter gunships,” says the Sudan Council of Churches, an umbrella organisation representing all Sudanese churches. (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/188-crisis-in-sudan/3522-the-sudan-council-of-churches-south-kordofan-reports-of-mass-atrocities-) Khartoum had indeed already begun an aerial bombing campaign targeting civilians and agriculture; the results have been a massive flow of refugees to South Sudan and huge numbers of displaced persons, many acutely or severely malnourished. A victim of the bombing campaign the Princeton Lyman refused to acknowledge in summer 2011 Encouraged yet again by the dissembling of the Obama administration’s special envoy, it was not surprising that Khartoum would soon initiate military hostilities in neighboring Blue Nile state; on September 1, 2011 a grim reprise of what we had seen for over two months in South Kordofan began in Blue Nile—it, too, continues to this day. Despite all that Lyman had seen in 2011, including continuing genocide in Darfur and a growing militarization of the regime, Lyman issued his most expedient declaration, his most destructively dishonest assessment of the Khartoum regime in December 2011: “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) There simply could be no preposterous assumption about the workings or instincts of the Khartoum regime: there is absolutely no intention to effect “reform via constitutional democratic measures.” Regime President Omar al-Bashir and former Defense Minister Abdel Rahmin Mohamed Hussein; both men have been indicted by the International Criminal Court for massive crimes against humanity in Darfur (al-Bashir has also been indicted on multiple counts of genocide). These are the men Princeton Lyman claims to believe can “carry out reform via constitutional democratic measures.” The so-called “National Dialogue” has been described as “political ploy” in leaked minutes of a September 10, 2014 meeting of the most senior military, security, and political figures—minutes fully acknowledged to be authentic by the office of the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan. Since Lyman’s spectacularly disingenuous interview, repression throughout Sudan has increased dramatically, as has censorship of the news media (the regime of course controls all broadcast media inside Sudan). Demonstrations over the effects of regime mismanagement of the economy in September 2013 resulted in police and security officials being given “shoot to kill” orders, a fact established by Amnesty International on the basis of morgue examination where they were allowed access. Hundreds of people were killed by gunshot wounds. Demonstrations have continued ever since, as inflation skyrockets, there are shortages of food and cooking fuel, and water supply crises go unaddressed. The almost total lack of foreign exchange currency has sent the Sudanese Pound into free-fall, with black market rates now in the range of 20 Sudanese Pounds to the dollar—a catastrophic decline (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article60925). And as the economy continues to deteriorate, repression continues to deepen throughout Sudan. “We want to see the regime carrying out reform via constitutional democratic measures”? Lyman’s statement is finally so disingenuous as to be little more than expedient mendacity. Is it surprising that during Lyman’s tenure as special envoy Darfur was “de-coupled” from the key bilateral issue between Khartoum and the Obama administration, counter-terrorism? The word “de-coupled” was used by an unnamed but senior administration official according to an official U.S. State Department transcript. (See also | http://sudanreeves.org/2011/02/15/darfur-de-emphasized-de-coupled-and-finally-denied-february-15-2011/). Donald Booth The current Obama administration special envoy for Sudan, Donald Booth, is unlikely to survive the transition to a Trump administration (although that administration is likely to be so disorganized on foreign policy issues that many people may simply be frozen in their positions for weeks or months). His comment in the Sudan Tribune must stand as a parting effort to explain eight years of failure to halt what candidate and first-term President Obama found expedient to call genocide: “[Abdul Wahid al Nur’s] refusal to negotiate has been a perennial problem for international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan, but it has become especially damaging as other parties to the conflict begin moving toward peace.” Booth seems to have forgotten or never bothered to learn the history of the terrible failure of “shotgun diplomacy” that was the 2006 Abuja “Darfur Peace Agreement” (DPA), presided over by an impatient Bush administration special envoy, Robert Zoellick. Nothing did more to divide the Darfuri rebel groups, only one of which signed the agreement—and the least valuable in securing peace (the SLM/A of Minni Minawi, and Minawi would soon leave the regime because of its all too predictable failure to uphold the terms of the DPA). Obama Administration Special Envoys for Sudan: A Succession of Failure, Duplicity, and Cynicism 24 November 2016 | Top News, Briefs & Advocacy: 2016 | Author: ereeves | 3282 words Obama Administration Special Envoys for Sudan: A Succession of Failure, Duplicity, and Cynicism Eric Reeves | November 24, 2016 | http://wp.me/p45rOG-1Yq The Obama administration—under three successive “Special Envoys for Sudan(s)”—has proved almost inconceivably misguided and destructive in addressing the many problems of Sudan—and not only genocide in Darfur (Obama himself used the word “genocide” repeatedly as a senator, a presidential candidate, and early in his Presidency). His administration and special envoys have collectively encouraged the Khartoum regime to believe it will pay no significant price for its continuing wars on the marginalized people of Sudan, and they have badly failed in assessing the political and economic crises of the country as a whole. The recent column in the Sudan Tribune by current envoy Donald Booth (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article60908/) only continues eight years of deliberate and expedient misrepresentation of Sudan’s crises and the diplomatic tasks that confront not only the U.S. but the African Union, the UN, and the European Union. I’ll return to Booth’s central claim, one that implicitly suggests that the Khartoum regime (one of the “parties to the conflict,” in his diplo-speak) is beginning to move “toward peace” in Darfur—a claim for which there is not the slightest shred of real evidence: “[Abdul Wahid al Nur’s] refusal to negotiate has been a perennial problem for international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan, but it has become especially damaging as other parties to the conflict begin moving toward peace.” While I too have found Abdul Wahid thoroughly obdurate in conversation, the idea that he is the problem—that if only his “cooperation” could be secured Darfur’s massive crisis would be resolved—is simply perverse; it appears to be a last, desperate effort by the Obama administration to absolve itself of responsibility for the continuation of “genocide” over the entire eight years of Obama’s two terms as President of the United States. The Obama administration’s current Special Envoy for the Sudans, Donald Booth But before looking in detail at the disgraceful dishonesty of Booth’s assertion, it is worth looking briefly at the destructive diplomatic handiwork of his two predecessors, also part of the Obama legacy. Air Force Major-General (ret.) Scott Gration Gration was appointed by Obama in March 2009 to address perhaps the single most difficult diplomatic challenge on the world scene: ongoing war in Darfur and the troubled move toward fulfillment of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA; January 2005) between Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army of South Sudan (as well as South Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Abyei). Gration had no knowledge of Sudan, no diplomatic experience, and had voted for George W. Bush in 2000, three years before Bush led the U.S. and Britain into the catastrophic invasion of Iraq. He had no Arabic or other relevant language skills. Air Force Major-General (ret.) Scott Gration—the embodiment of diplomatic incompetence He was completely befuddled by the challenge posed by Khartoum’s expulsion from Darfur (March 2009) of thirteen critical international nongovernmental humanitarian organizations, and the closing of three Sudanese NGOs. So over-matched was Gration that it fell to then-Senator and now Secretary of State John Kerry to handle the crisis, which he did in his typically expedient and disingenuous fashion. UN humanitarian officials informed me at the time that the expulsions and closures represented roughly 50 percent of total humanitarian capacity in Darfur; Kerry traveled to Khartoum and issued the following statement in April: “We have agreement [with Khartoum] that in the next weeks we will be back to 100 percent [humanitarian] capacity,” said [Senator John] Kerry. (Reuters [el-Fasher], April 17, 2009) John Kerry, the consummately expedient diplomat Kerry knew full well that such restoration of capacity was not even remotely logistically possible. But by framing it as an “agreement” with Khartoum, Kerry effectively made the crisis look manageable. No matter that the Khartoum regime had never abided by any such agreement—not one, not ever. The same has been true of the “Status of Forces Agreement” between Khartoum and the UN and African Union concerning UNAMID forces: that “agreement” in January 2008 guaranteed the forces the right to move unhindered throughout Darfur. Relentless denial of access has defined UNAMID’s presence in Darfur from the day the agreement was signed. And full humanitarian capacity was never restored in Darfur, nor anything remotely close. On the contrary, Khartoum continued with its expulsions of humanitarian organizations and made access as difficult for humanitarians as it had for UNAMID. By the time Envoy Gration was actually working in office, he demonstrated extraordinary and dangerous ignorance on Darfur issues. He quickly sided with the regime on the question of early returns of displaced persons, without any understanding of the danger facing people forced to leave the relative security that the camps afforded. For that ignorance he was taken sharply to task by a humanitarian “Inter-Agency Management Group” (IAMG) in summer 2009: people who actually understood the situation on the ground in Darfur refused to be silent in the face of such dangerous statements as issued from Gration and his office. This was reported by the superb journalist for the Washington Post, Colum Lynch, on August 5, 2009 | http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503808.html/. With access to the notes from the IAMD of their meetings with Gration, I wrote in detail about their harsh assessment of the special envoy’s views (http://sudanreeves.org/2011/01/23/us-special-envoy-on-returns-of-displaced-persons-in-darfur-september-2009/). Undeterred by the evidence of his ignorance, Gration soon went on to display his thoughts about diplomacy with the hardened and supremely canny Khartoum regime: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries—they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement” (Washington Post, September 28, 2009 | http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092802336.html/) The fatuous, benighted, and dangerous character of dealing with ruthless génocidaires on such a basis can hardly be overstated. These words certainly encouraged Khartoum immensely in its continued ethnically-targeted campaign of destruction in Darfur, and set the stage for the events of late 2010 and early 2011 in the run-up to the Southern self-determination referendum. On Abyei in particular—joined by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry—Gration urged the government in Juba to “compromise” further on the boundaries of Abyei, despite the existence of a final and binding ruling on Abyei from the Permanent Court of Arbitration—binding arbitration that Khartoum had agreed to (July 2009). This ruling was favorable to Khartoum and significantly reduced the area of Abyei entitled to participate in what was to have been a January 9, 2011 self-determination referendum, which would have seen an overwhelming vote to join South Sudan. But encouraged by Gration and others in the Obama administration, Khartoum had by the time of the referendum resolved to seize all of Abyei militarily, which it did—after substantial and clearly visible military preparation—on May 20, 2011 (for a complete timeline of events and decisions leading to this deeply threatening military action, see http://sudanreeves.org/2011/05/27/an-abyei-timeline-the-long-road-to-khartoums-military-invasion/). Princeton Lyman Just as destructive as Gration in the attitudes and policy views he espoused was Obama’s second special envoy, Princeton Lyman. Lyman was in charge of Sudan policy throughout the early months of 2011 and knew full well of Khartoum’s military preparations to seize Abyei. He said nothing of consequence, and after the actual seizure on May 20, also said nothing of significance—no demands that Khartoum withdraw militarily, specifying consequences if they did not. All that the U.S. and international community offered the people of Abyei, denied their right to a self-determination referendum as guaranteed by the CPA’s “Abyei Protocol,” was an Ethiopian brigade of peacekeepers, which has done little more than preserve the status quo. Unsurprisingly, emboldened by the entirely successful military seizure of Abyei, Khartoum soon after initiated hostilities in South Kordofan. The most consequential early violence was in the capital of the state, Kadugli. Almost from the first we had many highly credible reports—including from an Agence France-Presse correspondent on the scene—of mass killings of Nuba, the general name for the African tribal populations of the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan. House-to-house searches, traffic barricades, and arbitrary arrests of people of Nuba ethnicity defined these early days. So too did mass graves, capable of holding thousands of bodies. (For a lengthy overview of what we knew, when we knew it, and how we knew it, see | http://sudanreeves.org/2013/10/11/genocide-in-the-nuba-mountains-a-retrospective-on-what-we-knew-june-2011-2013/). Working at the time as an advisor to the Satellite Sentinel Project (http://www.satsentinel.org/), I had daily access not only to the photographs but expert military and forensic analysis. Even though our photographic resolution was limited by U.S. law, the findings were simply unambiguous. And yet Princeton Lyman denied the validity of these findings, refused to credit the reports coming from Kadugli, and allowed a Rwanda-like event to proceed without any U.S. condemnation. He went so far as to claim that our analysis of the clear evidence of mass graves was mistaken—that he had “other evidence.” The supremely expedient and disingenuous former Obama administration special envoy for Sudan, Princeton Lyman But in early July 2011, the report of a UN human rights team that had been in Kadugli for the horrific killings of June 2011 was leaked (reportedly by the U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice). The lengthy report is an astonishing catalog of crimes and crimes against humanity by Khartoum’s forces, recognized as such by the UN human rights reporters. Their report should be required reading for any who wonder whether the Khartoum regime is likely to be swayed by “cookies and gold stars.” In the summer of 2011 Lyman continued his deeply, destructively disingenuous ways. In an interview with Margaret Warner of PBS’ “NewsHour” (June 28) Lyman told Warner: “the Nuba Mountain region in Southern Kordofan, where Northern forces have moved in and many residents have fled, is not in danger of becoming another Darfur. “Mountain people are fighting back and I don’t think the North is capable of dislodging large numbers of people on an ethnic basis from the Nuba Mountains,” he said. “Second, I’m not sure that’s the objective of the government, though local commanders may have a different point of view.” (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/sudan-envoy/) More than five years later this assessment is of course spectacularly in error—but even in June 2011, such an assessment required that Lyman overlook a host of evidence, including that in the UN report (to which he surely had access, at least of preliminary findings) and from the reports of countless Nuba fleeing to South Sudan. One chilling report of June 10, 2011 should certainly have caught Lyman’s attention: “Other [Nuba] have fled to the Nuba mountains, where they are being hunted down like animals by helicopter gunships,” says the Sudan Council of Churches, an umbrella organisation representing all Sudanese churches. (http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/188-crisis-in-sudan/3522-the-sudan-council-of-churches-south-kordofan-reports-of-mass-atrocities-) Khartoum had indeed already begun an aerial bombing campaign targeting civilians and agriculture; the results have been a massive flow of refugees to South Sudan and huge numbers of displaced persons, many acutely or severely malnourished. A victim of the bombing campaign the Princeton Lyman refused to acknowledge in summer 2011 Encouraged yet again by the dissembling of the Obama administration’s special envoy, it was not surprising that Khartoum would soon initiate military hostilities in neighboring Blue Nile state; on September 1, 2011 a grim reprise of what we had seen for over two months in South Kordofan began in Blue Nile—it, too, continues to this day. Despite all that Lyman had seen in 2011, including continuing genocide in Darfur and a growing militarization of the regime, Lyman issued his most expedient declaration, his most destructively dishonest assessment of the Khartoum regime in December 2011: “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) There simply could be no more preposterous assumption about the workings or instincts of the Khartoum regime: there is absolutely no intention to effect “reform via constitutional democratic measures.” Regime President Omar al-Bashir and former Defense Minister Abdel Rahmin Mohamed Hussein; both men have been indicted by the International Criminal Court for massive crimes against humanity in Darfur (al-Bashir has also been indicted on multiple counts of genocide). These are the men Princeton Lyman claims to believe can “carry out reform via constitutional democratic measures.” The so-called “National Dialogue” has been described as “political ploy” in leaked minutes of a September 10, 2014 meeting of the most senior military, security, and political figures—minutes fully acknowledged to be authentic by the office of the U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan. Since Lyman’s spectacularly disingenuous interview, repression throughout Sudan has increased dramatically, as has censorship of the news media (the regime of course controls all broadcast media inside Sudan). Demonstrations over the effects of regime mismanagement of the economy in September 2013 resulted in police and security officials being given “shoot to kill” orders, a fact established by Amnesty International on the basis of morgue examination where they were allowed access. Hundreds of people were killed by gunshot wounds. Demonstrations have continued ever since, as inflation skyrockets, there are shortages of food and cooking fuel, and water supply crises go unaddressed. The almost total lack of foreign exchange currency has sent the Sudanese Pound into free-fall, with black market rates now in the range of 20 Sudanese Pounds to the dollar—a catastrophic decline (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article60925). And as the economy continues to deteriorate, repression continues to deepen throughout Sudan. “We want to see the regime carrying out reform via constitutional democratic measures”? Lyman’s statement is finally so disingenuous as to be little more than expedient mendacity. Is it surprising that during Lyman’s tenure as special envoy Darfur was “de-coupled” from the key bilateral issue between Khartoum and the Obama administration, counter-terrorism? The word “de-coupled” was used by an unnamed but senior administration official according to an official U.S. State Department transcript. (See also | http://sudanreeves.org/2011/02/15/darfur-de-emphasized-de-coupled-and-finally-denied-february-15-2011/). Donald Booth The current Obama administration special envoy for Sudan, Donald Booth, is unlikely to survive the transition to a Trump administration (although that administration is likely to be so disorganized on foreign policy issues that many people may simply be frozen in their positions for weeks or months). His comment in the Sudan Tribune must stand as a parting effort to explain eight years of failure to halt what candidate and first-term President Obama found expedient to call genocide: “[Abdul Wahid al Nur’s] refusal to negotiate has been a perennial problem for international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan, but it has become especially damaging as other parties to the conflict begin moving toward peace.” Booth seems to have forgotten or never bothered to learn the history of the terrible failure of “shotgun diplomacy” that was the 2006 Abuja “Darfur Peace Agreement” (DPA), presided over by an impatient Bush administration special envoy, Robert Zoellick. Nothing did more to divide the Darfuri rebel groups, only one of which signed the agreement—and the least valuable in securing peace (the SLM/A of Minni Minawi, and Minawi would soon leave the regime because of its all too predictable failure to uphold the terms of the DPA). Robert Zoellick, who bears chief diplomatic responsibility for the ill-fated 2006 Abuja (Nigeria) “Darfur Peace Agreement”—a complete disaster for Darfur…ineptitude in confronting the Darfur crisis certainly extended back to the administration of George W. Bush A true expert on Darfur, who has worked both for the UN and nongovernmental organizations—and who understands all too well the true obstacles to peace in the region—has conveyed to me his contempt for Booth’s argument about Abdul Wahid, asking several questions to which the special envoy has provided no answers. Two of these questions in particular force a larger view of Obama administration policy failure: Why did the opposition Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), a coalition that includes the Darfur rebel groups and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement-North (SPLA/M-N), split in two at the very time their structure and cohesiveness was supposedly being strengthened by the Obama administration? The Obama administration gave untold thousands of dollars to a law firm that was supposed to help with capacity-building within the SRF—but doesn’t know the first thing about Sudan. Why aren’t other rebel groups, including the SPLA/M-N, participating in the talks Booth mentions? Abdul Wahid’s obduracy is of long-standing, to be sure—but his distrust of Khartoum is shared by all groups. Over the years we have seen many declarations by Khartoum of a “cessation of hostilities,” every one of them violated. Diplomatic asymmetry is such that if Khartoum makes such a declaration, the rebel groups feel compelled to make the same declaration, even as they know that Khartoum’s word is meaningless, and than when it is advantageous to resume fighting, they will do so, until every area of Sudan is under full military control. In Darfur Khartoum is very near success on this score, at least after this year’s massive and savage assault on Jebel Marra, the former stronghold for Abdul Wahid’s forces. The campaign was distinguished by vast, targeted destruction of the Fur population of Jebel Marra, including by means of chemical weapons (authoritatively established by Amnesty International). Abdul Wahid, who is not nearly as popular among Darfuris in the camps as he once was, or among his own Fur people, controls relatively little territory, and is likely to be overwhelmed by the eventual dry season offensive by Khartoum, almost certain to be the “final solution” to its “Darfur problem.” Abdul Wahid doesn’t have the power or support to stop peace if Khartoum were truly interested; that is simply not the case. Khartoum will in the end settle for nothing other than complete military victory and control of all of Darfur. Booth is blind to this basic fact, all too amply supported by recent history. Booth chooses not to speak of these realities—or the continuing predations of Khartoum-backed militia forces, especially the well-armed and well-supplied Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that have coordinated with Khartoum’s regular forces in both East Jebel Marra since 2013 and in the Jebel Marra massif itself, particularly over the past year (see Human Rights Watch report of September 2015). Nor does he speak of the other militia and paramilitary forces in Darfur that do Khartoum’s bidding, whether directed or not. Nor does he speak of the massive obstacle to peace that continues to grow with the ongoing, violent expropriation of farmland by these Arab militias, who have in the words of infamous Janjaweed leader Musa Hilal, “changed the demography of Darfur” (http://sudanreeves.org/2015/11/05/musa-hilal-and-the-changing-of-darfurs-demography/). If the second part of Hilal’s exhortation has not yet been fulfilled—“empty Darfur of African tribes”—that is not because of any successful urging of restraint by the Obama administration over the past eight years, including during the tenure of Donald Booth. Notorious Janjaweed leader Musa Hilal The past is future for Darfur, and that is unspeakably cruel (http://wp.me/p45rOG-1P4). [Eric Reeves has written extensively on Sudan for almost two decades; he is a Senior Fellow at Harvard University’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights]

Rohingya Muslims flee Myanmar amid deadly attacks At least 86 people have been killed and 30,000 displaced as violence continues unabated in Myanmar's Rakhine state. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/rohingya-muslims-flee-myanmar-deadly-attacks-161123201948561.html ================================== Rohingya flee to Bangladesh to escape Myanmar military strikes Oliver Holmes and agencies the Guardian | Thursday 24 November 2016 03.42 EST Last modified on Thursday 24 November 2016 09.00 EST https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/24/rohingya-flee-to-bangladesh-to-escape-myanmar-military-strikes ===================================== Editorial, Los Angeles Times When will Myanmar stop persecuting the Rohingya? http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-myanmar-violence-20161122-story.html ==================================== Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi is failing to stop military violence against Rohingya Muslims in Burma Her insistence not to point fingers without evidence that the military has been responsible of arson, rape and murder against the Muslim minority group suggests that she is either unwilling or unable to confront them directly Josh Webb Read the full text - (ZARNI's Remark: I don't agree with the thrust of Webb's concluding argument repeating the same mantra of 'rule of law' and 'democratic values' - when in fact both the state and the society have proven to be, well, Nazi-like). http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aung-san-suu-kyi-violence-rohingya-muslims-myanmar-failing-a7436121.html ======================= Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) International State Crime Initiative ISCI Press Release: Aung San Suu Kyi is legitimising genocide in Myanmar and has entrenched the persecution of Rohingya Muslims, warn state crime academics London 23 November 2016: Aung San Suu Kyi is legitimising genocide in Myanmar and has entrenched the persecution of the Rohingya minority, according to state crime specialists at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). State crime experts from Queen Mary University of London warn that current crisis echoes brutal period of 1977-8 and 1991-2 Rohingya minority are facing the genocidal stage of systematic weakening Aung San Suu Kyi has “entrenched the persecution of the Rohingya” Researchers from the International State Crime Initiative (ISCI) at QMUL’s School of Law last year published the results of months of fieldwork in Myanmar’s Rakhine State. Their investigation concluded that the Myanmar state’s policies are genocidal. Their research exposed evidence of mass killings, forced labour, torture, sexual violence, arbitrary detention, institutional discrimination, and the destruction of communities. They were among the first to describe the plight of the Rohingya as genocide. Penny Green, Professor of International Law at QMUL and Director of ISCI said: “The election of Anng Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy in 2015 has brought no respite for the Rohingya. In October this year a new reign of terror by the Myanmar state emerged and continues to escalate. We continue to see widespread killings, arbitrary detention, mass rape, collective punishment, arson, and village clearances.” The researchers say that on-the-ground reports reveal a consistent picture of a trapped, terrified, and desperate community. They warn that reports are consistent with historical practices of state repression and violence in the region, echoing the brutal and indiscriminate crackdowns of 1977-8 and 1991-2 when hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fled to Bangladesh. Alicia de la Cour Venning, lawyer and ISCI researcher said: “These events mark a disturbing but entirely predictable pattern in the genocidal process. Genocide begins by reducing the target group’s strength and undermining moral empathy for the victims. This stage is followed by more violent forms of persecution and eventually, particularly if perpetrators of violence are not held to account, mass killings.” The researchers say that entire communities are now experiencing the genocidal stage of systematic weakening: state-sponsored denial of access to health care, livelihood, food, and civic life. They warn that the government’s objective is to render the population so physically and psychologically diminished that they are unable to engage in a purposeful life. The group is strongly critical of Aung Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD). Earlier this year Suu Kyi demanded foreign governments refrain from using the term ‘Rohingya’, and the Myanmar government’s public statements continue to demonise and deny the group’s existence. Meanwhile the researchers say that the state run Global New Light of Myanmar implicitly referred to the Rohingya as a ‘terrorist’ ‘foreign’ threat in Northern Rakhine state and a ‘thorn which must be removed’. Myanmar’s own Human Rights Commission has refused to acknowledge the existence of the Rohingya and the domestic criminal justice system is being used as an instrument of persecution, according to the researchers. Professor Green says: “Despite the fact that this is the most significant test of Suu Kyi’s leadership, the country’s de-facto leader has remained remarkably indifferent. Neither Suu Kyi nor her President Htin Kyaw have visited Rakhine state during the current crisis. Suu Kyi says very little, other than to repeat the line that investigations will be conducted fairly and according to the rule of law. Her claim that ‘we have not tried to hide anything on Rakhine’ is utterly disingenuous. Her statements run counter to reports that we, and our colleagues in the human rights community, are receiving from the Rakhine state and can only be interpreted as denial – a familiar and integral strategy deployed by criminal states to deflect blame.” Thomas MacManus, lawyer and ISCI researcher says that Suu Kyi’s government has adopted “the military dictatorship-era tactics of blanket denial, an absolute ban on international observation, severe limitations on humanitarian access within the region, the muzzling of the press, and the ‘blacklisting’ and deportation of human rights activists”. He added: “Aung San Suu Kyi must be held to account. The Rohingya need strong advocates and they need the world to understand that the persecution they face is genocidal. Only enormous pressure on the Myanmar government will succeed in halting the devastation. The Rohingya are staring death in the face.” Media enquiries Researchers are available for comment and interview. Please contact: Mark Byrne Public Relations Manager (Humanities and Social Sciences) Queen Mary University of London E: m.byrne@qmul.ac.uk T: 0044 (0) 20 7882 5378 M: 0044 (0) 78 1590 2560 ISCI’s research Stigmatisation Emerging from decades of oppression and poverty, Rakhine state is ripe for economic exploitation, particularly in relation to natural resources. Demonising the Rohingya as ‘illegal Bengali immigrants’, the Myanmar state has manipulated genuine Rakhine grievances and Buddhist monks’ insecurities to foster conditions for ongoing persecution and violence for social, political and economic gain. The Myanmar government has been central in stigmatising the Rohingya, allowing hate speech, Islamophobia, the publication of inflammatory newspaper reports, and nationalism to flourish. The entire Rohingya population has recently been further disenfranchised, ahead of elections scheduled for November this year. However, the granting of citizenship cards with voting rights will not be enough to end the genocidal process. Citizenship has, for example, afforded little protection for the Kaman Muslim ethnic minority in Rakhine state. Harassment Physical violence resulted in some 200 deaths in Sittwe in 2012, and the threat of violence remains ever present for the Rohingya. Those responsible have enjoyed complete impunity for the violence. Our research reveals that the violence was planned and organised by local authorities supported by local civil society organisations, and political and Buddhist leaders. Continued harassment has contributed to the flight of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya. Isolation More than 100,000 Muslims, formerly living in mixed Rakhine and Rohingya communities, have been forced into squalid camps in an overcrowded and isolated detention complex on the outskirts of Sittwe. A further 4,250 Rohingyalive a precarious existence in downtown Sittwe’s militarised ghetto, Aung Mingalar. Dehumanised and destitute, Sittwe’s Rohingya live what can only be described as a ‘bare life’. The parallels with 1930s Germany are undeniable. Systematic weakening Systematic weakening is the genocidal stage prior to mass annihilation. Physically and mentally weakened, and living in broken communities devoid of social cohesion, the Rohingya have been stripped of agency and human dignity. The expulsion of Médecins Sans Frontières and the regulation of humanitarian aid are state actions designed to systematically weaken the Rohingya community. As the Rakhine National Party spokesperson declared in his interview with us (January 2015), “When the international community give them [Rohingya] a lot of food and a lot of donations, they will grow fat and become stronger, and they will become more violent.” Background and biographies More information about the International State Crime Initiative Biography, Professor Penny Green Biography, Dr Thomas MacManus Biography, Alicia de la Cour Venning http://statecrime.org/state-crime-research/isci-press-release-nov2016/

In a radical departure from a non-negotiable stance on separation the army's Japanese-trained founder the late Aung San, the successive generations of military leaders, including General Ne Win, have pursued an anti-Muslim project, particularly after the army's take-over of power in 1962. The project began half-century ago, with a clear goal of Muslim population control, and the Rohingyas have been the prime target because they are the only one with their own historical concentration in Western Burma - before the clear boundaries were drawn and before the countries of Burma and East Pakistan (since 1971, Bangladesh) came into existence. Now the late Aung San's daughter has joined hands with the genocidal Burmese military in this project. It was Aung San Suu Kyi who single-handedly made the decision to cleanse her NLD party of any Muslim candidate on the eve of 2015 elections. All her top deputies including ex-Captain Win Htein and ex-General Tin Oo were in favour of keeping Muslim representation in their party. According toU Ko Ni, the NLD's lone Muslim lawyer - racists always make an exception as in "my best friend is Black' - 3 Muslim candidates were nominated to run on the NLD ticket. Aung San Suu Kyi said unequivocally NO. Bingo! We have Muslim free NLD. Muslim free armed forces. Muslim free cabinet. ​Excluded from all other domains of society and the State, Muslims of course focus on economic activities. While there are poor Muslim communities the Burmese look at the Muslims as economically successful - "greedy". (The other commercially successful racial/ethnic group that are viewed with disdain are Chinese. But the Burmese regime dare not trigger this anti-racist time bomb as the Chinese tanks will roll down into Burma - as the Communist Party of China is no longer presiding over the impoverished and isolated China as it did half-century ago, when pogroms against the Chinese in Southeast Asia took place in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Ne Win's Burma.)​ OIC is internally fractured, and the pan-Islamic community, largely impotent to stop violence within and against Muslim communities - and the West, itself, anti-Muslims, Myanmar is having a field day, raping and slaughtering Rohingyas. In March 2013, within 36 hours, the genocidal racists slaughtered roughly about 500 Muslims in the heartland of Burma - a town called Meikhtila. It is a military town, where about 60 armed forces units are permanently headquartered, and within 2 hrs drive from the capital. The security troops were told to 'do nothing' when pogroms were taking place. Here is evidence from the past press clippings, which establish my country's despicable genocidal project re: Muslims and particularly the Rohingya people. ​ ​Alas, Aung San Suu Kyi is upset for being called out by the West on her 'inaction' on the pogroms. Having collected virtually every human rights and humanitarian honours from every corner of the world, she is expected to behave more than a 'run-of-the-mill' politician. ​But she is deeply racist towards the Muslims - widely reportedly - and she has used her partnership with the military for her own delusions of grandeur, having abandoned any pretence of "Buddhism" or liberal "principles". No wonder her government, leading racist "monks" and Rakhine leaders 'heartily' welcome Trump victory in the United States. ​With Myanmar leaders like these - in Buddhist community, in the armed forces, in society - it is little wonder that Myanmar is doing what it is doing now: engaged in a slow genocide, with period spikes of direct killings and plateaus of daily, routinized oppression of the Rohingyas in particularly - and Muslims in general. ​ ​ We are going down in history as yet another genocidal country - like Nazi Germany or Rwanda or Serbia. ​ And rightly so. But certainly, not in my name. ​

Bangladeshi border guards patrol the bank of the river Naf near the border with Burma to prevent Rohingya refugees from crossing. (Mohammad Ponir Hossain/Reuters) The broad estuary of the Naf River separates Bangladesh and Burma. On both sides of the Naf, armed forces have amassed of late. The countries aren't at war — against each other at least. Rather, the soldiers are on the lookout for members of the Rohingya ethnic group. Burma wants them out. Bangladesh wants them to turn around and go back. On Wednesday alone, Bangladeshi police said that more than 500 Rohingya made a desperate voyage across the Naf, adding to the thousands who have crossed in recent days. For the past month, human rights groups have documented the burning of entire Rohingya villages by Burma's military. But the Bangladeshis, who for the most part share the Bengali language and Muslim faith with the Rohingya, say they have no room for refugees. “We nabbed them after they illegally trespassed [into Bangladesh]. They will be pushed back” to Burma, local police chief Shyamol Kumar Nath told Agence France-Presse. [New satellite imagery shows how Burma’s military is torching villages] Fleeing Rohingya who have spoken with reporters and human rights activists recounted killings and rapes in their villages. They fear suffering the same fate if Bangladesh forces them to make the return journey. The news agency Reuters reported that escalating violence has killed scores and displaced about 30,000 in recent weeks. The violence seems to have been triggered by an attack on Oct. 9 against Burmese border police that killed nine. Police blamed Rohingya militants — accusing them of ties to radical Islam — and began a scorched-earth campaign. The roots of anti-Rohingya sentiment go back decades, if not centuries, in Burma, a majority-Buddhist nation also known as Myanmar. Rohingya are denied citizenship in Burma. The smoldering debris of a burned house in Warpait, a Muslim village in Rakhine state, is seen on Oct. 14. (Ye Aung Thu/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images) Burma's de facto head of state, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, has expressed concern about the fate of the Rohingya but has also accused them of causing the violence. Suu Kyi has had to balance her record of human rights activism with a growing tide of Buddhist nationalism that has emboldened the military, which ruled the country for decades before her. Since communal violence occurred between ethnic Burmese and Rohingya in 2012, more than 32,000 Rohingya have legally registered as refugees at camps in Bangladesh. According to the AFP, many of those who have fled in recent days are hiding out in those camps, hoping to blend in. Thousands more are waiting to cross the Naf into Bangladesh. “Difficult as it is for the Bangladesh government to absorb large numbers, it seems to me there is no other choice,” said John McKissick, who heads the U.N. refugee agency's office in southern Bangladesh. “Because the only other choice is death and suffering.” © The Washington Post 2016

The fact is this: My country's governments - all military and/or military-controlled like Aung San Suu Kyi's has been engaged in the state policy and practice of rape, arson, slaughter, and purge of the Rohingyas since Feb 1978 - all with blanket impunity. If you steal a cow from a neighbor in Burma you are likely to punished within the existing domestic justice mechanism. Rape as many Rohingya women or slaughter as many Rohingya men you are granted blanket impunity. All this has been going on for nearly 40 years, since I was 13. Now I am 53. The same shit keeps happening - thousands have done. In the 1978 exodus, nearly 10,000 died of diseases and starvations, as well as stampede at border crossings. Bangladesh gov. pushes back, makes threats including arming the Rohingyas, the Burmese side backs down, Rohingyas repatriated, under duress and without any guarantee of safety once repatriated. International community, so-called cries foul. Western governments throw some humanitarian dollars at the problem. UN Agencies expand, INGOs move in. Rohingyas keep dying, keep being raped, keep being slaughtered. ​Burma's official justificatory narratives keep changing: illegal immigration, concern for Muslim population growth, Buddhist-Muslim "sectarian violence', and now 'jihadists/militants" concern, all a threat to sovereignty and national security and existence. ​Just hit the "Repeat"​ button. Change the byline of any Rohingya news report, copy, cut and paste the text. Nothing really has changed. Rohingyas are being destroyed, with spikes of violence and plateau of slow but routine regime of daily oppression. ​Here is a few clippings from my pile. ​ ​

A new humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Myanmar after the military crackdown on “Islamist jihadists” in the Rakhine State, home to more than one million Rohingya Muslims. The military claims it began the counter-terror operation after three border security posts came under attack on October 9. But since then more than 130 people have been killed in the State and 30,000 displaced, triggering a new wave of migration of Rohingyas to neighbouring countries. The army denies targeting civilians, but satellite images taken after the start of the crackdown indicate that hundreds of buildings were burnt down; reports suggest that even those who tried to flee the country were shot dead. The migrants are not welcome in Myanmar’s neighbourhood either. The violence itself is not surprising given the record of persecution of the Rohingyas in Myanmar. Many in the Buddhist-majority country call them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh though they have been living in Rakhine for generations. Myanmar’s military started a systematic persecution of the Rohingyas in the 1970s when thousands were deported to Bangladesh. The rest were stripped of citizenship by the junta, which often used the Rohingya problem to drum up support for itself among the Buddhist majority. What is surprising this time is the silence of the government led by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. Ms. Suu Kyi, the country’s de facto ruler, has not said much about the military operation in Rakhine, or spoken for the Rohingya cause. When her party took power in April, ending decades of military rule, many had hoped that it would signal the dawn of a new era of peace and democracy in Myanmar. But the government has been largely ineffective in tackling internal security and humanitarian issues. The operation in Rakhine shows the change of guard in government hasn’t brought any meaningful difference to Myanmar’s most disadvantaged sections. True, the army still remains a powerful institution. It controls the security, defence and border ministries besides wielding considerable economic power. It is also possible that the generals are escalating the conflict on their own. Even so, the government cannot remain in denial about the atrocities. Ms. Suu Kyi bears responsibility for what is happening in Rakhine now because her party rules, not the junta. For decades, Myanmar persecuted the Rohingya people while the world ignored their plight. By all accounts, that situation has not changed. Copyright 2016 The Hindu

A new humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Myanmar after the military crackdown on “Islamist jihadists” in the Rakhine State, home to more than one million Rohingya Muslims. The military claims it began the counter-terror operation after three border security posts came under attack on October 9. But since then more than 130 people have been killed in the State and 30,000 displaced, triggering a new wave of migration of Rohingyas to neighbouring countries. The army denies targeting civilians, but satellite images taken after the start of the crackdown indicate that hundreds of buildings were burnt down; reports suggest that even those who tried to flee the country were shot dead. The migrants are not welcome in Myanmar’s neighbourhood either. The violence itself is not surprising given the record of persecution of the Rohingyas in Myanmar. Many in the Buddhist-majority country call them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh though they have been living in Rakhine for generations. Myanmar’s military started a systematic persecution of the Rohingyas in the 1970s when thousands were deported to Bangladesh. The rest were stripped of citizenship by the junta, which often used the Rohingya problem to drum up support for itself among the Buddhist majority. What is surprising this time is the silence of the government led by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. Ms. Suu Kyi, the country’s de factoruler, has not said much about the military operation in Rakhine, or spoken for the Rohingya cause. When her party took power in April, ending decades of military rule, many had hoped that it would signal the dawn of a new era of peace and democracy in Myanmar. But the government has been largely ineffective in tackling internal security and humanitarian issues. The operation in Rakhine shows the change of guard in government hasn’t brought any meaningful difference to Myanmar’s most disadvantaged sections. True, the army still remains a powerful institution. It controls the security, defence and border ministries besides wielding considerable economic power. It is also possible that the generals are escalating the conflict on their own. Even so, the government cannot remain in denial about the atrocities. Ms. Suu Kyi bears responsibility for what is happening in Rakhine now because her party rules, not the junta. For decades, Myanmar persecuted the Rohingya people while the world ignored their plight. By all accounts, that situation has not changed.

"So long as there remains little international appetite for an intervention on Responsibility to Protect grounds, the world now faces a choice. Do we continue to pretend Myanmar is a democracy, increase trade links, encourage even more tourists to flock to Myanmar, and give the NLD government the “space” Suu Kyi insists they need to resolve the country’s many problems? Or do we acknowledge that Myanmar is still in effect a military regime, one that is currently raping, killing, and burning the homes of its Rohingya minority, and conduct our relations as we would with any other country guilty of similar crimes against humanity? With the U.S. president-elect giving no indication that international human rights is high on his agenda, it seems unlikely he will overturn Obama’s decision to lift sanctions. It may fall upon nearer neighbors to be the standard bearers on what as an international community we are prepared to accept." - Kim Tatam Read the full essay here: Stop Pretending Myanmar Is a Democracy The world should stop pretending that Myanmar’s military is no longer committing rights abuses. http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/stop-pretending-myanmar-is-a-democracy/ ============================== Relentless persecution Statesman News Service | November 24, 2016 | 03:30 AM http://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/relentless-persecution-1479938303.html The irony is cruel. The persecution of the Rohingyas has intensified in Myanmar with the change of guard -- from the junta to a democratic dispensation under Aung San Suu Kyi. The democratic world had expected quite the contrary, if not a distinct measure of improvement in the condition of the stateless minorities of Rakhine province -- a wandering group near the Bangladesh border... floundering in search of a home. The latest offensive by the Myanmarese military is strangely of a piece with Suu Kyi's silence on the issue ahead of the momentous transition early this year. No less deafening must be her muted response at this juncture. Now that she is in power, though not as President, there can be no compelling reason to almost tacitly condone the offensive.The plot thickens as satellite images have revealed the destruction of no fewer than 820 homes in the three weeks of this month. In the net, the Rohingyas have been displaced further still in course of what has been packaged as “counter-insurgency operation”. We do not know what the provocation for the latest onslaught was. Yet we do know that Human Rights Watch has called for the UN's intervention, asserting that “these alarming new satellite images confirm that the destruction in Rohingya villages is far greater than what the government has admitted”. Human rights is at stake as must be the purportedly democratic government's credibility. The withers of the Suu Kyi administration in Naypidaw remain unwrung. Far from coming to the rescue of the minorities, the government has acknowledged that helicopter gunships were used in support of ground troops in the military operations. The civil administration must have been privy to the army’s action, indeed an offensive that has made a travesty of the democratic engagement. Thus far, the government and GHQ have advanced only an unsubstantiated charge -- that nine police officers were killed by “unidentified assailants” on the Bangladesh border. On closer reflection, the junta doesn’t play the second fiddle in the overall construct and it will be painful for the democratic bloc, not least India, to reflect that the post-transition government has been thoroughly insensitive to the stepped-up persecution. Its silence runs parallel to the military offensive. It becomes direly imperative for Myanmar to stop the offensive and no less crucially to grant citizenship to the Rohingyas, who have lived in Rakhine for generations. Persecution is the thread that binds the generations, and the democratic change of guard has done but little to assuage the suffering of the stateless. ba Actually, however, there has been a palpable worsening of the human rights situation. And this must be contextualised with the caveat of Human Rights Watch -- “The government should simply look at the facts and take action to protect all people in Myanmar, whatever their religion or ethnicity”. --Editorial ================================================ ‘Malaysia’s duty to help end the genocide of Rohingya’ http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/363724 The Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy (Centhra) is extremely concerned of the ‘massacre’ of the Rohingyas that continues unabated on a daily basis and even now, as this press statement is drafted. The Burmese regime in Naypyidaw’s transformation from being a military junta to a so-called civilian government headed by a supposed Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, apparently has done nothing to roll back the regime’s cruelty and wanton disregard for the consequences of its actions in the face of judgment by the international community. No less than seven other Nobel Peace prize laureates have stepped forward to condemn the massacre and have urged that it be described and designated as no less than a genocide. These Nobel Peace Prize laureates range are in no particular order, Mairead Maguire from Northern Ireland, Jody Williams from the USA, Tawakkol Karman from Yeman, Shirin Ebadi from Iran, Leymah Gbowee from Liberia, Adolfo Perez Esquivel from Argentina and Desmond Tutu, leader of South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s, who has urged the end to the slow genocide of the Rohingya. According to these laureates, the Rohingyas face a textbook case of genocide where an entire indigenous community is being systematically wiped out by the Burmese government. Centhra agrees, nothing that this is precisely how the term genocide is defined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) of 1951. The notion that the systematic execution and extermination of Rohingya amounts to no less then the crime of genocide is also supported by a report published by the International State Crime Initiative (ISCI), Countdown to Annihilation: Genocide in Myanmar, stating that compelling evidence of state-led policies, laws and strategies dating back to 30 years exist which together, amount to state-sponsored genocide, and persecution entered a new and more devastating phase in 2012, after the new civilian regime was installed in Myanmar. The ISCI concluded that systematic, planned and targeted weakening of the Rohingya through mass violence and discriminatory and persecutory policies have culminated into the final two stages of genocide, mass annihilation and the erasure of the group from Myanmar’s history, and failure to act against the regime now would result in serious and present danger of the annihilation of the Rohingya population. Further, a 2016 briefing by the Burmese Rohingya Organisation in the UK notes specific incidents of continued persecution of and crackdown on Rohingya over the border incident in Rakhine state from Oct 9, 2016 till the present day and has recommended the international community immediately step in to stop end the continued human rights violations, provide for unrestricted aid access, investigate abuses against Rohingya and end the restrictions, intimidation and censorship of local and international media reporting on this issue. ‘Blanket denial on the part of the regime’ Centhra notes that the UN envoy on human rights in Myanmar, Yanghee Lee, is unaware of any efforts on the part of the Burmese regime to look into the systematic human rights violations that have become a daily occurrence in Rakhine state, despite State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi’s claim to be responding based on the principle of rule of law. This has amounted to blanket denial on the part of the regime, and is a farce of the highest order. Centhra urges immediate action by governments, NGOs and civil societies across the region and around the world to end the systematic ongoing genocide presently taking place within Myanmar’s borders. To this end, Malaysia, as a prominent member of Asean and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and moderate voice of the international community, must lead efforts to suspend the Burmese regime’s membership of Asean. Centhra would also like to avail itself of the opportunity to urge the Malaysian public to attend two protests this week, to take place on Friday (Nov 25, 2016) before the Myanmar Embassy and Saturday (Nov 26, 2016) at Masjid Negara, respectively organised by Malaysian civil society groups. Centhra urges all Malaysians regardless of race, religion or creed, to join the said two protests so that a strong message may be sent to the regime, namely, that the world is watching and will never let their crimes against the Rohingya people go unpunished. Together, let us assist in bringing justice to the Rohingya by pressing our governments to collectively pressure the regime to end its genocide and human rights abuses against a section of its own population, no less. ________________________________ AZRIL MOHD AMIN is a lawyer and chief executive of the Centre for Human Rights Research & Advocacy (Centhra). Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/363724#ixzz4Quz7vLTA

Jonathan Greenblatt, C.E.O. of the Anti-Defamation League, talks with Rachel Maddow about the new sense of empowerment white nationalist groups are showing in connection with the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. ©2016 NBC UNIVERSAL

In this May 12 file photo, ethnic Rohingya sit at a refugee camp north of Sittwe, western Rakhine state, Myanmar. The long-persecuted Rohingya, many of whose families arrived in Myanmar generations ago, are treated as illegal migrants from neighboring Bangladesh and virtually excluded from the political process. (AP/Gemunu Amarasinghe ) The security situation for 1.3 million Muslim Rohingyas living in Myanmar is becoming increasingly untenable. If this situation deteriorates much further, ASEAN can expect to be facing a mass migration crises before the year is out. Unfortunately for the Rohingyas, the window of opportunity to prevent this humanitarian crises is rapidly closing. Put simply, if Jakarta doesn’t respond soon, it will be too late. If this crises can’t be averted through careful diplomacy, the flow of refugees from Myanmar is likely to rapidly reach a magnitude that will overwhelm the region’s capacity to respond. For 25 years the maritime border security situation in Southeast Asia has been relatively stable. ASEAN’s geographic isolation from the Middle East, Africa and South America has served to insulate it from the mass migration crises in Europe and North America. In early 2015, almost 25,000 Rohingyas took to boats to escape persecution from Myanmar's Buddhist government. This mass migration flow caused a crisis across Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Over the last month, the situation for the Rohingyas has once more entered a state of rapid and deadly decline. The Myanmar government alleges that on Oct. 9 an insurgent Rohingya group launched coordinated ground assaults against several border guard posts, killing nine police officers and five soldiers. Since the attacks, the Myanmar government has deployed large numbers of police and military forces to the Rakhine state. According to official Myanmar reporting, 69 suspected insurgents and 17 security force personnel have been killed since the attacks began. It is alleged by international advocates that Myanmar’s government forces have shot scores of people, raped women, burned houses and stores and looted property across Rakhine state. These attacks have universally targeted the Muslim Rohingya minority. Various non-government organizations have reported that in excess of 30,000 Rohingyas are now displaced by the violence. The 2015 Rohingya crisis demonstrated how upsurges in persecution can lead to sudden and large migration flows. The events of the past few weeks have been described by some observers as the biggest surge in violence against the Rohingya for at least four years. Bangladeshi officials are already reporting that the number of Rohingyas attempting to cross the border from Myanmar by land and sea is rising by the day. With an estimated population of 1.3 million Rohingyas in Myanmar, the potential for a mass migration crises in the region is clear. The conditions are now ripe for sparking a crisis that could see tens of thousands of people displaced across the region. In late 2014, European nations were receiving similar warnings of the possibility of a mass migration crisis involving Syrian refugees. At the time both the European Union and many of its individual member states failed to heed the warnings and were ill prepared for the mass migration crisis that followed. The Europeans learned that in the face of mass irregular migration, border security measures quickly fail. Europe's 2015/2016 migration crisis clearly demonstrated that on its own a maritime blockade is not enough to contain desperate people. This is why prevention and early intervention are critical. While well intentioned, the United Nations has had little impact on the situation on the ground. At present, the UN is lobbying the Myanmar government to allow much needed aid to be distributed in Rakhine state. With US president-elect Donald Trump’s imminent ascendancy to the Oval Office, American engagement in the Asia-Pacific is on pause and its future uncertain. The strained relations between Myanmar and China ensures that Beijing is unlikely to intervene to secure the Rohingyas' fate. Australia’s long commitment to the Middle East and the war on terrorism have seen it walk away from the Mekong states, so is unlikely to proactively engage with Myanmar. If the crises is be averted, help will need to come from within the ASEAN region. However, ASEAN moves far too slowly to be a real option. As the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia has a religious and regional obligation to come to the aid of the Rohingyas. If this is not enough, heading off a costly humanitarian emergency is also in Indonesia’s self-interest. Indonesia needs to lobby for Myanmar to halt its security operations in Rakhine state as soon as possible. Furthermore, Indonesia should offer humanitarian assistance for the 30,000 displaced Rohingyas. In the longer term Jakarta will need to harness bilateral and multilateral efforts to address the persecution of the Rohingyas if a more permanent solution is to be found. If Indonesia doesn’t act soon to end the persecution of the Rohingyas, the region may face a humanitarian crises that stretches from Rakhine state to the archipelago’s shores.

The "global civil society" - grassroots communities not controlled by governments and corporations - ought to be considered OSTRACISING Myanmar, the country, the military and Aung San Suu Kyi - need to be persuaded to take a stand against the Rohingya genocide, when UN and national governments fail to end the genocide. I figured out the emptiness of the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi as early as 2004, when I turned publicly my back on the entire NLD and supporters and use my own judgement as guide for my activism - instead of sitting at her feet. ZARNI Here is what a former dissident has to say about Aung San Suu Kyi and her manipulations of public and ethnic people - for POWER. Pon Nya did his PhD in politics at Washington U. in USA and now advising Mon ethnic armed organization on ceasefire negotiations. Pon Nya Mon 7 hrs · When she wants democracy she allies with people and ethnic nationalities. When she wants power, she allies with army. Guess who? ============================= Malaysia debates pulling out of ASEAN soccer cup over Myanmar's Rohingya crackdown By Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/myanmar-rohingya-malaysia-soccer-idUSL4N1DO1WC Published: 02:14 EST, 23 November 2016 | Updated: 02:14 EST, 23 November 2016 KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 23 (Reuters) - Malaysia is considering pulling its side out of a major regional soccer tournament co-hosted by Myanmar in protest over Myanmar's crackdown on ethnic Rohingya Muslims, a senior Malaysian official said on Wednesday. A withdrawal by Muslim-majority Malaysia from the ASEAN Football Federation's (AFF) Suzuki Cup, which began on Saturday, would run counter to the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations' long-standing policy of non-interference. "I raised this issue in Cabinet last week. Will do so again this week and stand guided by decision," Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin said on Twitter on Wednesday. That came in response to a call by a state Islamic cleric for Malaysia to pull out of the tournament, which is co-hosted with the Philippines. Cabinet is expected to meet on Friday. Malaysia was due to play Vietnam in Yangon on Wednesday. The conflict in northwestern Rakhine state has sent hundreds of Rohingya Muslims fleeing to Bangladesh and poses a serious challenge to Nobel peace prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who swept to power last year on promises of national reconciliation. Myanmar soldiers have poured into the Maungdaw area in Rakhine state since Oct. 9, after an insurgent group of Rohingyas that the government believes has links to Islamists overseas launched attacks on several border guard posts. Escalating violence has reportedly killed at least 86 people and displaced some 30,000. Myanmar soldiers have also been accused of sexually assaulting dozens of women from the persecuted minority. Suu Kyi's problems have since been exacerbated by a resurgence of fighting among four armed ethnic groups in northeastern Shan state, which has sent thousands fleeing into China. (Reporting by Joseph Sipalan; Editing by Paul Tait)

Paul VriezeKachin Independence Army (KIA) cadets follow drills at a training school in Laiza, on the Burma-China border. Burma's de facto leader can't control an army with a vested interest in conflict As the sun slowly sets behind the jungle-covered mountains of northern Burma’s Kachin state, a dozen or so rebel fighters are preparing for a night in the trenches at their hilltop post. Conditions are tough, and the men say they struggle to sleep in their damp dugouts. The enemy is never far — Burmese army troops can be seen stationed on another hilltop, some 500 meters away. Several such posts, manned by around 200 Kachin soldiers, are the only southern line of defense separating government forces from Laiza, a nearby town on the Burma-China border and a Kachin Independence Army (KIA) stronghold. Though this particular area, called Lawa Yang, has not seen serious clashes for two years, the soldiers are wary as violence is rising across the region. “We are worried there could also be fighting here,” says Lt. Col Zhau Hpan, a burly Kachin veteran who commands Lawa Yang. “We think the Burma army wants to increase the fighting. In the north, we see they are building new roads to position their artillery.” The KIA is one of more than 20 non-state armed groups in Burma, which is formally known as Myanmar, and it’s one of the biggest rebel armies in the country. The 10,000-strong militia, made up of soldiers from the Kachin ethnic group, has been fighting for autonomy from the Burmese government since the 1960s, making it one of the world’s longest civil wars. In 2011, a 17-year cease-fire broke down, and since then fighting has displaced about 100,000 people and killed hundreds. The KIA says the Burmese army launched a major offensive in mid-August, some 30 km north of Laiza, to capture a strategic mountain, named Gidon by the Kachin. If successful, it would cut the KIA territory into two. The assault has since intensified and KIA forces — dug into the mountaintop and armed with basic assault rifles, machine guns and mortars — have repelled waves of ground attacks, while taking daily mortar shelling and frequent strikes by artillery, fighter jets and helicopter gunships. “The situation is escalating, the Burma army is deploying more and more troops,” KIA spokesperson Lt. Col Naw Bu told TIME during an interview in Laiza. He said 15 rebels were killed or injured at Gidon, while the KIA estimates the Burmese army had sustained 100 casualties by late October. Play Video U.S. Lifts Sanctions on Burma President Barack Obama said Wednesday the U.S. is lifting economic sanctions and restoring trade benefits to former pariah state Naw Bu said some 3,000 government soldiers had moved into positions along the roughly 100-km stretch of border area controlled by the rebels, and clashes have become frequent. On Sunday, in response to months of growing pressure from the military, the KIA and three smaller allied armies — the Rakhine, Ta’ang and Kokang rebels — struck back unexpectedly. Several hundred fighters jointly attacked army and police stations at three areas in northern Shan state, including near Muse, Burma’s main border gate with China. State media said eight people were killed, including three civilians; 29 were injured. The violence caused the border to be closed and prompted China to put its army on high alert in the area. About 3,000 civilians fled and are reportedly seeking shelter in China. The offensive and the rebels’ retaliation mark the heaviest fighting in northern Burma since 2014, and the violence has escalated despite ongoing efforts by de facto government leader Aung San Suu Kyi to reach a nationwide cease-fire between the military and 20 ethnic rebel groups. Government spokesperson Zaw Htay condemned Sunday’s attacks by the rebels, saying they were “a very big setback for our peace process … we are very concerned.” He added, “Our key border trade route to China, our biggest trading partner, has been cut.” The recent conflict adds to the woes of the young National League for Democracy (NLD) government, which also faces a deepening crisis in western Arakan state. There, the army is carrying out lethal operationsamong stateless Rohingya Muslims while searching for suspected militants who launched deadly attacks on police outposts last month. Disillusion is spreading In early April, the NLD formed Burma’s first democratic government following half a century of military rule, after it clinched a historic election win last year. It prioritized a resumption of the peace process and hopes of a nationwide cease-fire by February 2017. That truce would then allow for political dialogue to address ethnic groups’ demands for federal autonomy, as well as reforms to the army-drafted constitution. Yet shortly after the new government’s first peace conference in late August, the military ramped up attacks in Kachin, intensified operations in neighboring Shan state and began a hunt for a rebel splinter group in southern Karen state, an area that had seen little fighting for years. Thousands of civilians were displaced anew and numerous reports emerged of torture, extrajudicial killings and indiscriminate shelling of villages, for which the army — known locally as the Tatmadaw — has long been notorious. The rising bloodshed highlights a fundamental challenge for the NLD: how to build trust and guide peace talks between ethnic groups and the military, while the army, in accordance with the constitution, continues to run all security operations under the ministries of defense, home affairs and border affairs, as it sees fit. “Expectations were high just two months ago … but the Tatmadaw now appears to be pursuing its own policies once again, without explanation or apparent regard for the political and humanitarian cost,” Tom Kramer, an expert on Burma’s conflict with the Transnational Institute, a Netherlands-based policy organization, tells TIME. “Disillusion is spreading in [ethnic] communities that voted for the party in large numbers,” he said. “It is not too late, but the NLD needs to take urgent steps to assert its authority on the nationwide peace process.” So far, the government has tried to establish a working relationship with the army and avoided criticizing its expanding operations, while encouraging regular peace talks between all sides. The recent upsurge in fighting has dimmed hopes among Kachin soldiers and civilians living in Laiza, that the NLD government can take control of the peace process and prevent the military from launching new attacks. “Peace will remain distant. The NLD cannot do anything because the Tatmadaw controls everything under the constitution,” said Lt. Col Zhau Hpan, the frontline commander at Lawa Yang Post in the mountains around Laiza. Paul VriezeA Kachin Independence Army (KIA) soldier seen at Lawa Yang frontline post. The Burma Army is stationed on the hills in the background. Some 5,000 residents, thousands of KIA soldiers, and around 20,000 displaced civilians live in this narrow valley hemmed in by mountains on one side, and a small river on the other that demarcates the border with China. Many in Laiza are weary; the conflict is entering its sixth year. Kachin leaders said during interviews in late October that they continued to support the peace process despite the army offensive, but trust in the process was being eroded. “The KIA’s position is that a political discussion is the only solution to end the conflict,” KIA spokesperson Naw Bu said. “Like the NLD, we want to establish a democratic and federal union. If that happens, it would reduce the powers of the army — that’s why the army wants to keep fighting.” The military, which only shares its views through official statements, has continued to express support for the peace process and a political dialogue. It has not yet responded publicly to Sunday’s rebel attacks. The continued fighting has required the KIA to expand its forces and it is recruiting hundreds of young Kachin from rebel and government areas to its “National Service.” The draft is voluntary and many are motivated by a sense of duty, though the KIA’s unofficial “one recruit per family” rule has led to allegations of forced, and sometimes underage, recruitment in rural areas. At a training school located on a hill outside Laiza, about 100 cadets — some of them barely out of their teens, including a few girls — were being drilled by a sergeant in the midday heat. The four-month program was preparing them for combat, or in the case of female recruits, deployment behind the front line. While returning to their barracks, two cadets, aged 26 and 28, said they had both left their jobs in Mandalay, central Burma, to join the KIA. “We are ready to fight. We want to defend against the Myanmar army,” said one of them, who asked not to be named. Military blocks aid A few kilometers outside of town, 20,000 displaced Kachin villagers have been languishing for five years in crowded, dilapidated U.N.-built camps. Jobs are scarce and most here depend on aid. Another 30,000 displaced people live in camps in other areas under control of the Kachin rebels. Some 50,000 reside in camps in government-controlled areas in Kachin and Shan states. The recent increase in fighting has lowered spirits among the displaced, who are simultaneously being affected by cuts in international aid and an army blockade that has prevented aid convoys from crossing the frontline since May, ostensibly for security reasons. The U.N., which recently was forced to cut about 20% of its aid to most displaced Kachin due to a donor funding shortfall, has called for the easing of the restrictions. Local aid groups accused the army of politicizing humanitarian aid. “Aid blockades have been used by the military as a political tool since the conflict began, but in recent months it’s worse,” said La Rip, director of Kachin Development Group, an NGO based in Laiza. “The army now has the intention to create a chaotic situation in the KIA-controlled camps.” La Rip said that for many people in KIA areas the democratic transition to an NLD government had yielded nothing so far. “They say Myanmar is a different country now, but the people here see no difference — they are actually suffering more than before there was an elected government,” he said. La Phai Hkawn Shang, a mother of two who has lived in Je Yang displacement camp since 2011, said she could accept the aid reductions, but was disheartened by the rise in fighting after the NLD took over. “I can’t complain about food, I’ll receive what I’m given,” she said. “But we cannot believe Aung San Suu Kyi. We thought she would stop the army, yet now the fighting is increasing.” Read More: Inside the Kachin War Against Burma Read More: Burma’s Transition to Civilian Rule Hasn’t Stopped the Abuses of Its Ethnic Wars Read More: 5 Challenges Facing Burma’s New Civilian Government © 2016 Time Inc. All rights reserved.