_edited.png)
The Three-Step Pragmatic Strategy to Achieve Peace in Rakhine/Arakan
- globalarakannetwork
- Jun 26, 2024
- 5 min read
By Paw Twan Maung, GAN
Shortread: Opinions June 26, 2024
AA soldiers rescuing the Muslim IDPs in Buthidaung (Photocredit)
Since the coup's inception, the issue of Muslim refugee repatriation from Bangladesh has faded from Myanmar's mainstream political narrative. However, diaspora activists, who often leverage this issue for fundraising, have seized the opportunity to bring it back into focus following the Arakha Army's (AA) capture of Buthidaung town near the Myanmar-Bangladesh border. The weaponization of human rights by diaspora activists and foreign aid brokers has prominently resurfaced again in international media and diplomatic circles. These narratives, drawn from outdated playbooks, have consistently failed to provide solutions for both Myanmar and the broader global conflict landscape, relying instead on tactics of blame, shame, and superficial concern. In this sense, the prospect of peace-building between the two communities in Rakhine State remains elusive under the international community's hypocritical behaviors and moral high-ground claims.
The simplest path to achieving peace in Rakhine State lies in gradually cooperating with the Arakha Army (AA) to foster peace-building efforts between the two communities. Unfortunately, the international community has failed to recognize the civilian protection and evacuation operations conducted by the AA against the deadly threats posed by the State Administration Council (SAC) forces. Instead of cooperating, these actions have been mischaracterized as forced relocations and arson attacks. These allegations stem from false narratives and misinformation, relying on satellite images that identify damage but not the actual perpetrators. Moreover, the international community has neglected the usual arson attacks carried out by SAC forces as a weapon of war in dry zones. According to data released by the organization, called the Data for Myanmar, the SAC forces have used arson tactics to destroy at least 8 million civilian residential buildings.[1] This is part of the ongoing collective punishment carried out by SAC forces since the coup began. Nobody raised questions or took serious actions concerning the lives and homes of millions across the country, even when clear evidence pointed to the SAC forces as the perpetrators. However, in the case of Rakhine, the international community and diaspora NGO workers loudly expressed superficial concerns, blaming and shaming the AA despite lacking clear evidence. They relied solely on satellite images, which show damage but do not identify the perpetrators. Yet, it appears the international community and human rights activists are, either deliberately or carelessly, falling into the traps set by the SAC in the Rakhine case.
This article aims to offer three realistic approaches and strategies for resolving the issues in Rakhine State. Often, so-called international experts, who lack a track record in resolving any conflicts and fail to grasp the realities on the ground, muddle the process of finding common ground between the two communities. They seem unaware that the sequencing of steps is crucial for conflict resolution and the peacebuilding process. The first approach is to establish conditions for a coexistence society. The second approach involves reaching a consensus on the term "Rohingya" and its self-claimed political history. The third approach is to develop a new political imagination for a future fraught with uncertainties.
The fragile coexistence of two communities, plagued by mistrust and misunderstandings, must be a primary concern in creating conducive conditions for peaceful living together. Simultaneously, the international community and foreign governments should support the Arakha Army (AA), a legitimate agency with the full political mandate, capacity, and authority to manage this situation rather than exacerbate tensions. This process will likely be gradual, requiring significant material resources and socioeconomic opportunities for both communities. At the same time, safe and voluntary repatriation from Bangladesh is crucial, but achieving this hinges on establishing safe and enabling conditions between the existing Muslim population and the Rakhine communities. Despite threats from the State Administration Council (SAC), fostering unity under the ULA/AA leadership can help bridge divides between these groups. Regardless of any repatriation framework, creating conditions for coexistence between the two communities is paramount. It's important to note that current criticisms from diaspora activists and one-sided international portrayals are unconstructive. These voices risk worsening the deteriorating trust between the communities with each passing day.
Moreover, when it comes to the Muslim issues from Rakhine State, mostly stuck in the term “Rohingya,” the approach of the ULA/AA tends to be viewed in binary terms—acceptance or rejection. According to observation, the ULA/AA does not categorically reject the name "Rohingya" from a human rights perspective. As a progressive revolutionary organization, the ULA/AA upholds international human rights norms and practices, including the right of individuals to self-identify as they wish. This stance is straightforward and does not pose a threat to anyone. However, the historical portrayal of "Rohingya," which undermines the historical identity of Arakan, presents a challenge to the Arakanese identity. The narrative surrounding the Rohingya depicts them as an exclusionary identity, set against the diverse communities in Arakan, particularly the Kamans (Rakhine-speaking Muslims), Mara Grees (Bengali-speaking Buddhists), Hindus, and other groups. The confluence of name and identity has become a political issue. In addressing this, the optimal approach to resolution involves accepting the term "Rohingya" while acknowledging the manipulated history and self-created identity. Literally, the dialogue without bargaining for both sides will result in disappointing results in realpolitik . Attempting to force acceptance of the name "Rohingya" without addressing the politically motivated and manipulated historical narratives would not be a justifiable or logical solution, particularly for the Rakhine and other minority communities, which have the right to refute false historical claims and manipulated identities. Furthermore, fostering trust and a sense of belonging through dialogue between the two communities is imperative. Resolving this issue may take time, but it represents the most pragmatic path toward a sustainable solution. We must be aware that this is how the world works, and we can see many examples across the globe.
The current political landscape in Myanmar is fraught with uncertainty, making it difficult to predict the future state formation—whether it will be a federal union, confederate union, or hybrid union. Each ethnic group in Myanmar is engaged in various forms of resistance against the SAC forces to shape the future state according to their aspirations. However, many Muslim residents of Rakhine State have chosen to take up arms supplied by the SAC forces, fighting against the AA in collaboration with the SAC. Claims of forced recruitment under conscription laws seem unfounded, given numerous photo and video evidence showing Muslim youths willingly participating in combat against the Rakhine community. In this context, it is observed that the prospect of envisioning a new shared political imagination through these actions of the Muslim population is unsettling for the Rakhine and other minority communities, and even for other ethnicities in Myanmar. These dynamics mustn't be perceived as a contest of grievances or a political privilege as the Rohingya. For the ULA/AA, which advocates the freedom of all people regardless of ethnicity or religion, the Muslim population in Rakhine State may be seen as their constituents, with the potential to secure their individual rights within the framework of a future political entity developed by ULA/AA. But if the international community pushed forward to reach this final point without any common ground for the two previous points, it would worsen the situation.
As the summary, we all should noted that the Human civilization is replete with stories of struggle, negotiation, and compromise. Timing is crucial in selecting the right issues to address appropriately. The issue of Muslim repatriation from Bangladesh is not discretionary; it requires careful consideration of timing. Choosing incorrectly could lead to unintended consequences for both parties.
[1] May 2, 2024, Data For Myanmar.
Comments