_edited.png)
GAN/ Arakan (Rakhine State) September 2, 2024
While sensational stories from various media outlets about the conflicts and atrocities in northern Arakan aim to draw international attention, certain interest groups within the human rights industry view this human suffering as a political tool to advance their own agendas and enhance their public popularity. The foundation of the human rights concept is often seen as hypocritical, and the methods employed by self-appointed human rights defender groups are not without controversy. Although human rights activism is an admirable endeavor, it can also generate negative externalities as a consequence. This phenomenon is what the respected human rights scholar, Professor Ratna Kapour, refers to as ‘vigilantism’—law enforcement carried out without legal authority by self-appointed individuals or groups.
Although organizations like Fortify Rights do not consider themselves law enforcement actors, they often display a vigilante mindset, promoting a singular narrative without credible evidence, driven by political motives and interests. This tendency was evident when Fortify Rights released a report on August 27, 2024, titled "International Criminal Court: Investigate Arakan Army Massacre of Rohingya Civilians, Hold Perpetrators Accountable." While the title is bold and attention-grabbing, the report itself is vague and lacks substance. The introductory paragraph reflects that intention;
“A new Fortify Rights investigation documents the AA’s indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against fleeing Rohingya civilians on August 5 and 6, and the displacement of Rohingya from Maungdaw Township, Rakhine State”
The report prematurely asserts that the attacks were conducted by the Arakan Army (AA) and describes them as indiscriminate and disproportionate, framing them as clear violations of international humanitarian law.
Deficient Methods and Approaches
Fortify Rights claims that its data collection methods are based on a review of open-source video and photographic evidence, along with interviews with survivors. The group states that they interviewed 13 survivors and eyewitnesses of the August 5 attacks but did not specify the number of interviews conducted regarding the August 6 incident. The list of interviews mentioned in the report is as follows:
According to the list, only seven specific individuals are described in detail, despite Fortify Rights' claim of interviewing 13 people. The report also references additional individuals under the vague title of "other eyewitnesses and survivors" to support the narratives without providing their ages or even pseudonyms. Additionally, it is unclear whether interviewees 4 and 5 are the same person or different individuals.
Understanding the Context Matters
Before analyzing the logic and credibility of stories from eyewitnesses, it's crucial to first understand the context and ground situations. Two photo illustrations provide insight into these situations: one from the ULA-Research Team and the other from Fortify Rights.
According to the ULA-Research Team, their photo depicts the situation on August 5. In contrast, Fortify Rights does not specify a date for their photo, but it appears to illustrate events from August 4. The title of their map broadly covers the period from July 31 to August 20.
Indeed, the Fortify Rights map only categorizes the situation into two broad groups: 'Myanmar junta' and 'Arakan Army.' It does not account for Muslim militant groups such as the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), and Arakan Rohingya Army (ARA). The ground dynamics are more complex than what this map suggests.
Extracting the Facts
The stories reported by various interviewees in the Fortify Rights report are highly complex and require careful scrutiny. Independent Myanmar analyst David Scott Mathieson, for example, applies the concept of the 'Rashomon effect,' which refers to a storytelling technique where an event is described in contradictory ways by different individuals, offering varied perspectives on the same incident.
Furthermore, there are reasons to question whether the incidents truly occurred on August 5 and 6 as reported, despite the reality of fatalities and casualties. Eyewitnesses and survivors in the Fortify Rights report accuse the Arakan Army (AA) of being the sole perpetrator of atrocities, including indiscriminate attacks by drone bombs, mortars, and artillery, as well as rape and gunfire. While drone and artillery attacks are said to have occurred on August 5, rape and gunfire are considered to have taken place on August 6, when AA soldiers allegedly arrived at the victims' locations, shooting civilians and committing rape.
Firstly, regarding the incidents on August 5, there could be a tangible political motive since only the AA is accused as the sole perpetrator of the atrocities. Typically, someone familiar with the nature of war understands that it is very difficult for an ordinary person (civilian) to precisely identify the sources of drones, mortar, and artillery shelling. Therefore, one possibility is that some interviewees in the Fortify Rights report might be RSO members, who could theoretically invent new stories of the fighting scene or tell storylines directed by the RSO.
Second, a survivor interviewed by a Western news agency on August 13 stated that it is impossible to assume in advance that the drones and attacks came from the AA. Additionally, sources analyzing drone warfare have noted that drones can be flown from various directions to mislead adversaries and obscure their original location.
Despite interviewing several potential victims, the Fortify Rights report includes only one photo showing an injured man's hand from a bullet wound. See below.
However, if Fortify Rights’ report is to be considered credible, it should include more photos, videos, and other types of evidence to support their accusations. Clearly, the testimonies of some eyewitnesses are not sufficient to substantiate serious claims against the AA, given the potential for manipulated testimony and political bias. For example, the report describes a rape case but provides no evidence to confirm it. The so-called survivor claimed to have pretended to be dead while AA soldiers were raping a woman and cutting her arm and breast.
The question arises: How could he see the woman's injuries if he was pretending to be dead? Additionally, the Fortify Rights report does not mention the time and location of the incident, which are essential details to confirm the occurrence of an event.
Hidden Links Behind the Incidents
The report titled "Preliminary Fact-Checking and Incident Analysis," released by the ULA Research Team on August 17, 2024, explains that eyewitnesses and survivors interviewed by various media outlets could not agree on fundamental aspects of the incident. These discrepancies include the exact time, type of weapons used, direction of the attacks, and the number and causes of casualties.
The Research Team's report recommends that the ULA conduct more comprehensive and concrete investigations into the incidents. Meanwhile, according to GAN observations, the hidden links behind the incident are as follows:
Context:
Starting on August 3 and 4, the AA intensified its offensives against the Myanmar junta and their collaborators, including the ARSA, RSO, and other Muslim militants. Initially, the Myanmar junta and their allies blocked civilians from leaving the town, citing military objectives of using civilians as human shields and Islamic sentiments such as "Allah does not want you to leave the town, as it is a religious site." However, they soon realized that their time was running out.
Tragedy:
In these dire circumstances, RSO members attempted to exploit the situation by demanding between 400,000 to 700,000 Myanmar Kyat (MMK) from each passenger wishing to flee to Bangladesh. The problem arose when ARSA, which had poor relations with the Bangladesh border authorities, sought the same opportunity. Having previously engaged in deadly clashes, ARSA and RSO became competitors, fighting each other while trying to exploit the same fleeing civilians of their own ethnicity.
Evidence:
On August 20, the ULA spokesperson released three video interviews revealing how the RSO killed Muslim civilians and looted valuables from both living and deceased bodies possibly on August 5 and 6, 2024. In one video, a Muslim youth who witnessed the incidents admitted that the RSO was responsible for these crimes.
Reply: When they went to a place called Aadu Shweni, RSO came and fired bombs and guns, killing many people. Then they stole the boats and fled.
(Interviewer) Who were they? Who stole the boats and fled?
Reply: They were RSO people.
(Interviewer) Were the boats owned by civilians?
Reply: Yes, they were civilian boats. They went to take them for crossing. They also searched for and looted other items, including gold, silver, and other belongings from the dead bodies.
(Interviewer) Did you personally see them take things from the dead bodies?
Reply: Yes, I saw it with my own eyes.
(Interviewer) So, after taking those things, where did they go?
Reply: They headed towards Bangladesh. They threw away their guns and went towards Bangladesh.
(Interviewer) Did you see it yourself?
Reply: I did. They took all the gold, silver, and belongings from the dead bodies of Muslim women, men, and children. They also attacked and looted the boats. The remaining civilians said, “Take all the gold and silver we brought with us, just help us get to Bangladesh,” they pleaded for help. But they took nothing and just fled towards Bangladesh.
(Interviewer) Do you want justice from the Rohingya leaders?
Reply: Yes, we want justice.
Observers seeking a clearer understanding of the situation on the ground should watch two additional videos. In these, the RSO accuses the ARSA of committing crimes, while pro-ARSA members claim that RSO members separated men and women and raped the latter.
Interestingly, the reported rape case in the Fortify Rights report might actually involve RSO members, with blame shifted to the AA. The same could apply to CNN’s reported gang rape case on August 29, 2024, which they claimed occurred last July.
Credible Muslim sources contacted by GAN indicated that fewer than 10 people died in the armed clashes between the ARSA and RSO. The remaining deaths shown in the videos appear to be from drowning when boats capsized in the Naff River. This may have occurred because the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) did not allow the boats to dock in Bangladesh, or due to accidental sinking caused by heavy rain and wind. Therefore, it is not surprising to see varying death tolls reported, ranging from 20 to 200. Some photos related to the video incidents are shown below.
Textbook Examples of Disinformation?
In the 21st century, digital and social media platforms can spread disinformation about complex military and political situations, such as those in Northern Arakan, more rapidly than wildfire. Key characteristics of disinformation include fabrication, distorted facts, manipulative intent, targeting specific demographics, fake sources, use of social media, echo chambers, viral spread, and negative narrative construction.
More critically, disinformation often exploits the confirmation bias and prejudices held by some foreign observers against the Rakhine population and the Arakan Army. The manipulation of sensational stories to advance political agendas and degrade the image of the ULA/AA is not an isolated event but part of a pattern used by some Muslim diaspora activists and foreign interest groups.
Similar to the unverified news and accusations that followed the Buthidaung incidents, the current surge of accusations against the AA contains a considerable amount of insufficient and unbalanced pieces of information unfortunately resulting in what could be considered as textbook examples of disinformation. Constructed narratives from fake sources and distorted facts, amplified through echo chamber of international media outlets, misrepresent the situation in the Maungdaw incidents on August 5 and 6.
Comments