A leading national daily in Nepal recently posted about an art exhibition targeted towards helping the Rohingya community. While this sounded far-fetched at first, it later turned out to be about the 200 Rohingyas in Northern Kathmandu living in abysmal conditions in slums in leaky tents during the monsoon without blankets to prepare for the oncoming winter.
The government of Nepal does not give refuge to the Rohingyas because it does not have the financial capacity to do so and also because it wants to avoid further crises, as stated by the Home Ministry. The country is still trying to recover from the devastating 2015 earthquake and the blockade levied by India soon after.
The Rohingyas face such aversion not only in Nepal but also in India and Bangladesh where the governments refuse to take in the Rohingyas and even those who make it illegally are not recognised as refugees. The refugees who make it to the Bangladeshi shores are charged up to even 10,000 Taka ($122) per person by the local fishermen. Some also pay in gold and other valuables to row across in the boats for five hours. This ‘humanitarian’ act is very lucrative for the rowers while the unregistered Rohingya refugees are made to live in make-shift camps without adequate support and aid. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh said that temporarily Bangladesh would offer shelter but Myanmar should ‘take their nationals back’ soon.
These countries India, Bangladesh, and Nepal are neither parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol and have no legal obligation to take in the refugees. While who should take in the refugees from Myanmar could make for a long debate and many would argue that it is an obligation on the grounds of humanity and practice to accept these refugees, it is more important to delve into the crux of the issue that leads to the displacement of a community of 1 million people.
The Rohingyas who live majorly in Rakhine are not recognised as citizens in Myanmar. Due to the fact that they were brought to Myanmar as labourers by the British during their rule; upon independence, this migration was held illegal. It was then only internal movement since the British ruled the territory of present India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. But the Rohingyas in Myanmar were deemed ‘Bangladeshi’ upon independence in 1948 and were not included in the list of ethnicities eligible to obtain could get citizenship. The military coup in 1962 resulted in them being issued foreign identity cards, and in 1982 the reformed citizenship law reduced them to stateless residents. The direct repercussion of this was on their ability to live a decent standard of life, and they received no benefits or opportunities in the state whatsoever.
The government of Myanmar has been alleged of trying to perform ethnic cleansing in the state by getting rid of the Rohingyas. It has also been accused of committing ‘genocide’ by the international community, including the foreign minister of Bangladesh, because mass killing that is state-backed can be safely termed a genocide. Myanmar is a signatory to the Genocide Convention of Paris, 1948 which obligates the state to prevent and punish all acts of genocide. Further, they are also bound by customary international law and the principle of jus cogens which form the basic norms of International Law that cannot be ignored. Therefore, Myanmar could face sanctions from the international community for its violation of International Law.
This discrimination leading to violence against the Rohingyas also majorly comes because of the difference in faith. The Rohingyas are mostly Muslim in a Buddhist majority state, while some of them are also Hindus. However, in a picture of democracy so well painted by no other than Suu Kyi, who is the de-facto head of Myanmar and to the rest of the world a personification of struggle, sacrifice, and activism, it is of course ironic. Suu Kyi’s silence during these attacks had put her laureate status in question across the world. Upon finally having addressed the issue on September 19th, her statement only reiterated the fact that Myanmar does not fear international scrutiny. She also assured us that the Muslim communities and their villages were intact despite the evidence claiming otherwise. In the state of Rakhine where no media, humanitarian groups, or even the diplomats have any access, Suu Kyi has invited interested people to ‘join in their endeavours’.
The Rohingyas have been living in Myanmar for generations now but are still not recognized as citizens by the state. Not only are they deprived of fundamental rights, they are also deprived of basic aid and amenities on part of the State. The Rohingyas are currently stateless and have nowhere to call home. Women are raped, children are killed and the survivors have no choice but to live a life of subjugation. Today, when democracy and peaceful co-existence is the normative order, this particular minority community has been facing sub-human torment. While this does not only put in jeopardy the entire life and teachings of Buddha in a country that is majorly Buddhist, it more importantly raises questions on such heinous acts and how are they ever justified. The most important question that needs an answer is who is responsible for displacing an entire community of minorities: the ‘home’ country, the refuge refusing countries, or the rest of the world for being mere witnesses to such an atrocious endeavour.
Indonesian Muslim leader signals global shifts in meetings with Pence and Netanyahu
Yahya Staquf, a diminutive, soft-spoken leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim movement, and Indonesian president Joko Widodo’s advisor on religious affairs, has held a series of meetings in recent weeks that reflect the Muslim world’s shifting attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians and a re-alignment of socially conservative Muslim and Christian interests.
Just this month, Mr. Staquf, a staunch advocate of inter-faith dialogue and religious tolerance, met in Washington with Vice President Mike Pence, a devout evangelist Catholic who has described himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order,” and in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu.
Messrs. Pence and Staquf were joined by Reverend Johnnie Moore, an evangelist who in May was appointed by US President Donald J. Trump as a member of the board of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.
Mr. Staquf’s discussions would likely raise eyebrows at any given moment.
But they take on added significance because they came in the wake of Mr. Trump’s controversial recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, stepped up US support for Israel in United Nations bodies, and in advance of a whirlwind visit to the Middle East by US peace negotiators Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestine Authority has refused to engage with the Trump administration since the US recognition of Jerusalem and Palestinian officials were unlikely to meet with Messrs. Kushner and Greenblatt during their Middle East tour that focused on a draft US plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Details of the plan, described by Mr. Trump as the ‘deal of the century,’ remain under wrap, but Palestinians fear that it will be heavily geared towards supporting Israeli negotiating positions.
That fear has been reinforced by the Trump administration’s fiery support of Israel in the UN. The United States this month withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council, citing, among other reasons, the council’s repeated criticism of Israel.
Whether by design or default, Mr. Staquf’s meetings appeared to reinforce efforts by close US allies like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt to stifle opposition to Mr. Trump’s approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Turkey has been in the forefront of condemnation of US policy that resonates in Muslim public opinion, particularly in Asia.
Frustration with US and Israeli policies has undermined popular Palestinian support for a two-state solution that envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip, has facilitated weeks of protests along the border between Gaza and Israel in support of the Palestinian right to return to lands within Israel’s boundaries prior to the 1967 Middle East war during which Israel captured East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.
Israel has since annexed East Jerusalem and withdrawn from Gaza, which it blockades together with Egypt in a bid to undermine Hamas’s rule.
At least 142 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the protests erupted in late March and some 13,000 wounded.
Mr. Netanyahu trumpeted the political significance of his meeting with Mr. Staquf in a statement following their encounter.
“Muslim states are becoming closer to Israel because of the common struggle against the Iranian regime and because of Israeli technology. … The prime minister hopes that there will be progress in our relationship with Indonesia, too,” Mr. Netanyahu’s office said.
Indonesia and Israel do not maintain diplomatic relations but do not stop their nationals and officials from travelling between the two countries. Mr. Staquf has insisted that he was visiting Israel in his private capacity rather than as an advisor to the Indonesian president.
Indonesia recently revoked Israeli tourist visas in protest against Israel’s hard-handed tactics in Gaza. In response, Israel has threatened to ban tourist visas for Indonesians. Some 30,000 Indonesians, mostly Christian pilgrims, obtain visas to visit Israel each year.
Indonesia in May exempted Palestinian imports from custom duties in a bid to support the Palestinian economy.
Mr. Staquf insisted that his visit to Israel at the invitation of the American Jewish Congress was intended to promote Palestinian independence. “I stand here for Palestine. I stand here on the basis that we all have to honour Palestine’s sovereignty as a free country,” he said in a statement posted on his organization’s website.
Nonetheless, Mr. Staquf did not meet Palestine Authority officials during his visit. Osama al-Qawasmi, a spokesman for Mr. Abbas’ Al Fatah group, charged that his visit was “a crime against Jerusalem, against the Palestinians and Muslims in the world, and constitutes support for the criminal Israeli occupier against our fighting and resolute people.”
Mr. Staquf was the second NU leader to visit Israel in the past two decades. Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid travelled several times to Israel before and after his presidency but not while he was Indonesia’s head of state.
Muslim leaders, many of which have long reconciled themselves to recognition of the State of Israel’s existence, have largely been reluctant to publicly engage with Israeli officials as opposed to non-Israeli Jews as long as Israel and Palestine have not made substantial progress towards peace.
Mr. Staquf like Mr. Wahid before him broke ranks by travelling to Israel, a move that sparked criticism and condemnation on Indonesian social media and from some members of parliament.
While the criticism has focussed on Mr. Staquf’s visit to Israel rather than his meeting with Messrs. Pence and Moore, it is also rooted in widespread perceptions of evangelists as purveyors of rising Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment.
Lost in that criticism is the fact that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is being hailed by some evangelists as heralding a new era with his projection of greater religious openness in the kingdom and his unprecedented statement that both Palestinians and Israelis “have the right” to have their own land.
“You know I couldn’t believe my ears actually when I was watching the news report where the crown prince of Saudi Arabia said directly, verbatim, He said this kingdom will become a kingdom for all religions. I had to watch it again and he was crystal, crystal clear.
You know as evangelicals this is a new day for us in the Middle East. Evangelicals are the baby Christians in the region… What we’re seeing is a new openness to what evangelicalism is, which I think is a move of the Holy Spirit.” Mr Moore said.
Mr. Staquf projected his visit to Israel as promoting the concept of rahma or compassion and mercy as the basis for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the forging of relations between Israel and the Muslim world.
In practice, by design or by default, it supports US and Saudi efforts to impose their will on the Palestinians and the larger Middle East that potentially could produce as many problems as they offer solutions.
In doing so, it pays tribute to Prince Mohammed’s ability to project himself as an agent of change in Saudi Arabia even if the precise contours of his vision have yet to emerge.
In a twist of irony, it is a tribute by the leader of a movement that was founded almost a century ago in opposition to Wahhabism, the ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim worldview that long shaped Saudi Arabia and that Prince Mohammed is seen as disavowing.
Will Mahathir Reset China-Malaysia Trade Relations?
A shock electoral upset has just returned 92-year-old Dr Mahathir Mohamad to the prime ministerial chair in Malaysia. The run-up to this climax was muddled by a miasma of fake news, lurid allegations and outright conspiracy theories from eitherside of the political divide. China-baiting was inevitably drawn into this tawdry mix despite mainland investments being a stabilizing main stay of the local economy.
According to an Economic Intelligence Unit report last year, Malaysia was the fourth-largest recipient of mainland Chinese direct investments – right behind Singapore, United States and the autonomous Chinese province of Hong Kong. Although the sum total of Chinese investments in Malaysia has not been adequately tallied,the US$100 billion Forest City project provides a snapshot of the staggering amounts being invested into the local economy.
While former Prime Minister Najib Razak hailed these investments as an imprimatur ofhis government’s investor-friendly policies, the opposition camp (and new government) accused him of “selling out to China”. In reality, one doubts whether foreign consortiums canmatch the scale, cost-effectiveness and speed of execution of many Chinese-led projects in Malaysia.
Dr Mahathir has particularly taken issue with the inadequate number of local jobs created by Chinese investments in Malaysia. It is an argument not without merit.Overseas Chinese infrastructure projects are known for their heavy reliance on mainland labour, machines and supplies – of the lock, stock and barrel variety – tokeep costs, graft and middlemen interference to the lowest possible scale.
Curiously, the backbone of Dr Mahathir’s electoral tsunami came from the ethnic Malaysian Chinese community who openly hailedthe global ascent of China. That was until theydiscovered thatmainland business models accommodated as few middlemen as possible.It was Alibaba on a massive scale, missing 40 thieves and in perennial need of 40innovators.
Many Malaysian consumerssave thousands of ringgit each year by purchasing a variety of consumer products directly from China instead of forking out a hefty mark-upat local stores.Unsurprisingly, there are now growing calls to tax online purchases from China. This is not going to help budget-strapped Malaysians who voted in the new administration on the back of complaints over rising living costs. Malaysia’s shadow economy has been estimated by various studies to range between 30 percent and 47 percent of its GDPup till 2010.
The anti-China narrative therefore may be couched in terms of multifaceted grievances like jobs and the South China Sea but it primarily boils downtoincentives for middlemen who contribute little or nothing in terms of value-additions to projects, productsor services offered by mainland companies. These modern-day compradors have an ally in another area bereft of value – added or otherwise.
The biggest impediment to the Malaysian economy is not China, its business modus operandi or the lack of local talent. It is the Malaysian media which has abjectly failed to relay grassroots ideas and innovations to national policy-makers for decades.
The author himself vividly remembers the lament of Dr Mahathir’s former national science advisor on the dearth of science journalists in Malaysia. This translates to recurring losses in taxpayer money.There is an oft-told account of how a fact-findingdelegation to the United States, seeking particular expertise in renewable energy technology,were told that the expert they were looking for was a Malaysian academic back in Kuala Lumpur!
Researchers needing critical economic or scientific data on Malaysia are likely to get them from foreign sources as even google cannot cope with the bottomless insipidity and juvenile meanderingsof the local media. Publicity-seeking experts with dodgy backgrounds are routinely sought for their banal insights and quotes in return for guaranteed filler spaces in a lack lustre media.Malaysia is gradually losing its economic and intellectual competitiveness due to the entrenched practise of mediocrity promoting mediocrity – egged on by Western interests.This forms the main backdrop to the current anti-China narrative.
Local media stalwarts privately blame politicians, in particular Dr Mahathir himself (during his previous 22-year reign) for the lack of media vigour and freedom in Malaysia. While media restrictions undeniably exist, one wonders how proposed articles on topics such as Open Governance could be seen assubversive.
It is high time to drain the swamp in Malaysia. Dr Mahathir has already indicated that the bloated 1.6 million-strong civil service in Malaysia would be pruned to promote economic and government transparency. For decades, successive governments had rewarded personal loyalty with plush posts and contracts. Malaysians now have another chance to demand efficient, meritocratic and transparent governance. Not mass-mediated bogeymen, viral passions and pies-in-the-skies.
The billion-dollar question now is whether the new administration will be able tousher in a transparent and vibrant media – one that can explore greater synergies within and abroad.Otherwise, Malaysia’s relations with its neighbours and trading partners are bound to deteriorate, along with its economy.
An abridged version of this article was published by CCTV’s Panview on May 14, 2018
Changing dynamics of China-India and China-Japan ties
Over the past year, there has been a growing interest with regard to the vision of a Free and Fair ‘Indo-Pacific’. While this term has been used in recent years by policy makers from the US and Australia and has been pushed forward by a number of strategic analysts, a number of developments since last year have resulted in this narrative gaining some sort of traction.
US President Donald Trump during his visit to South East Asia and East Asia in November 2017, used this term on more than one occasion, much to the discomfort of China (which prefers ‘Asia-Pacific). On the eve of his visit to India last year, Former Secretary of State, Richard Tillerson while speaking at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS, Washington DC) spoke about a larger role for India in the Indo-Pacific, and the need for India and US to work jointly. Said Tillerson:
‘The world’s center of gravity is shifting to the heart of the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. and India, with our shared goals of peace, security, freedom of navigation, and a free and open architecture, must serve as the Eastern and Western beacons of the Indo-Pacific, as the port and starboard lights between which the region can reach its greatest and best potential’.
In November 2017, the Quad grouping (Australia, US, India and Japan) met on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit pitching not just for a rules based order, but also in favour of enhancing connectivity. Commenting on the meeting, US Department of State had said that the discussions were important and members of the Quad were:
‘committed to deepening cooperation, which rests on a foundation of shared democratic values and principles.”
Earlier too the four countries had coalesced together, but as a consequence of Chinese pressure, the grouping could not last.
There have also been discussions of coming up with connectivity projects. While this was discussed during Australian PM, Malcolm Turnbull’s meeting with Donald Trump in February 2018. In April 2018, representatives of Japan, US and India met in New Delhi and committed themselves
Indo-Pacific and China factor
While members of the Quad continuously denied, that the Indo-pacific was specifically targeted at China, it would be naïve to believe, that this assertion. In fact, during a visit to Australia, French President Macron who is trying to position himself as one of the frontline protagonists of liberalism in the Western world, spoke about the need for India, Australia and France to work together in order to ensure a rules based order. Commenting on the need for India, France and Australia to jointly work for a rules based order, and checking hegemony (alluding to China), the French President, Emmanuel Macron, stated:
‘What’s important is to preserve rules-based development in the region… and to preserve necessary balances in the region….It’s important with this new context not to have any hegemony,”
Changing dynamics of China-India and China-Japan ties
While it is good to talk about a rules based order, and Free-Fair Indo-Pacific, it is important for members to do a rational appraisal, of ensuring that the Indo-Pacific narrative remains relevant . especially in the context of two important events. First, the reset taking place between India-China, and second the thaw between Japan-China.
This has already resulted in some very interesting developments.
First, Australia was kept out of Malabar exercises in June (Japan, US and India will be participating). Australia is a member of the Quad alliance, and has been one of the vocal protagonists of a Free and Fair Indo Pacific Narrative, and a greater role for India in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has on more than one occasion, expressed its desire to participate in the Malabar Exercises.
Many argue, that the decision to exclude Australia from the exercises, is a consequence of the significant shift taking place in India-China relations. Though India has been dismissive of this argument,
Second, Japan has expressed its openness to participate in the (Belt and Road Initiative) BRI, as long as international norms are met. During meetings between the Chinese and Japanese Foreign Ministers (Wang Yi, in April 2018, such a possibility was discussed. During Wang Yi’s meeting with Japanese PM, Shinzo Abe too this possibility was discussed. The Japanese PM who is seeking to improve ties with China, reiterated the potential of the Belt and Road Initiative in giving a boost to the regional economy.
It would be pertinent to point out, that a number of Japanese companies are already participating in countries which are part of the Belt and Road Initiative.
Interestingly, Japanese led Asian Development Bank ADB which has been funding many projects (spearheaded by Japan) which have been projected as a component of the Indo-Pacific strategy has even gone to the extent of stating, that it does not perceive AIIB as a threat. Commenting on the possibility of cooperation between ADB and AIIB, President of ADB, Takehiko Nakao stated:
“AIIB, it’s not the kind of threat to us. We can cooperate with AIIB because we need larger investment in Asia and we can collaborate.”
Where does Indo-Pacific go from here?
In terms of strategic issues, especially ensuring that China is not unfettered influence in the region, the narrative is relevant. The Chinese approach towards Indo-Pacific and Quad as being mere froth is an exaggeration. Addressing a press conference on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress, Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi had stated, that there was:
‘no shortage of headline grabbing ideas” but they were “like the foam on the sea” that “gets attention but will soon dissipate”,
Similarly, in terms of promoting Democratic values it certainly makes sense. The real problem is in terms of connectivity projects (beyond India-Japan, none of the members of the Quad have elaborated a coherent vision for connectivity). The US has spoken about an Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, but given the Trump Administration’s approach, it remains to be seen to what extent this can be taken further. While Australia has been steadfast in its opposition to China’s growing economic clout, it has its limitations, in terms of funding any concrete connectivity projects. Possible regions where Australia could play a key role should be identified. It has been argued, that Australia could play a key role in important infrastructural projects in the South Pacific.
It is fine to speak in terms of certain common values, but to assume that China can be the only glue, is a bit of a stretch, especially given the fact that it has strong economic ties with key countries pushing ahead the Indo-Pacific vision. It is also important, for the Indo-pacific to come up with a cohesive connectivity plan. Currently, the narrative seems to be driven excessively by strong bilateral relationships, and the individual vision of leaders. In the ever evolving geo-political and economic dynamics in Asia, with China re-examining its relations with both Japan and China, the key stakeholders in the Indo-Pacific region need to do some serious thinking.
Stronger Sanctions Won’t Solve the Venezuelan Problem
The outcome of recent elections on May 20th has triggered renewed sanctions against the Venezuelan regime. After banning ‘Petro,’ Venezuela’s government-issued...
US Foreign Policy in Crisis
Following the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the third multilateral...
Russia and Africa to strengthen ties further
Faced with persistent criticisms, Russia has finally announced it will most likely host the first high-level Russia-African Union forum next...
Value Chains Idea Contest Launched To Support Ethnic Minority Communities In Vietnam
Viet Nam’s Committee for Ethnic Minorities Affairs, the World Bank and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade today jointly...
Trade in fake Italian goods costs economy billions of euros
Global trade in fake Italian goods such as luxury handbags, watches, foodstuffs and car parts is taking a bite out...
Indonesian Muslim leader signals global shifts in meetings with Pence and Netanyahu
Yahya Staquf, a diminutive, soft-spoken leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim movement, and Indonesian president Joko Widodo’s advisor...
How Fashion Ties U.S. Domestic Politics with an Authoritarian on Kashmir
There is something charming about a first lady making media bloopers; however, one cannot say the same for those born...
- Mandarin Oriental, Milan Launches Fornasetti Designer Experience Offer
- Experience Margaret River’s Finest Wines at Alto Restaurant and Bar at Four Seasons Hotel Jakarta
- Hyatt Announces Plans for Hyatt Regency Almaty, Rahat Palace
- Largo do Boticário” welcomes the first JO&JOE Open House in South America
- Chef Miyakawa Opens Sushi Pop-Up At Mandarin Oriental Pudong, Shanghai
Middle East3 days ago
Bahrain’s Peaceful Gandhi might be executed
Americas2 days ago
How the New York Times Lies About Lies: Obama v. Trump as Example
Tech23 hours ago
Meet the 2018 World Economic Forum Technology Pioneers
Intelligence2 days ago
Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and the challenges in West Asia
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Spoiled Latvia’s image in the international arena
South Asia2 days ago
A Golden Cage of Repression: The Paradoxical Outcome of Afghan Women’s ‘Liberation’
Europe1 day ago
Who are the ‘Willing’ in Central Europe – Axis of the 1930s coming back ?
International Law1 day ago
Refugee Trepidations: Protection Palisades and How to throw down the Gauntlet