Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

China proposes peace process for Rohingya crisis in Myanmar and Bangladesh

China’s proposals are pragmatic, humane, respectful and hold the potential for long term multilateral benefits.

Published

on

2,583 Views

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has called for a three step peace process in order to put an end to the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, which has seen many refugees flee from Myanmar to neighbouring Bangladesh.

The current crisis has its roots in the multi-ethnic, multi-confessional nature of Mayanmar, according to its present borders which themselves derive from the 19th century British colonial map of the region.

While many western actors and some Muslim majority states have tended to see the issue as a one sided repression of the Muslim communities in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, in reality, the conflict is a multifaceted phenomenon which itself is just one front in Myanmar’s Civil War that has raged on and off since 1948.

In reality, there are both armed Muslim militants and armed Buddhist militants in the region. Innocent civilians of all religious backgrounds have both died and been displaced due to the actions of armed groups. On top of this, government troops desperate to keep the peace, have entered a conflict in which the liens between civilian and militant are often blurred in the impoverished region. Far from being an aggressor, the government troops in the region are caught in an almost impossible position. Hence, a political process is needed to end a conflict which has no clear-cut, let alone ethical military solution.

Thus far, the most concrete proposals the United States has proffered have been to effectively sanction various military actors in Rakhine State, while contemplating military sanctions against the Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military government.

Not only are such proposals universally counter-productive, but in the case of Myanmar, such things amount to sanctioning actors in  Rakhine State who are de-facto un-sanctionable.

As I previously wrote,

“Unlike many global conflicts which are proxy wars masquerading as civil wars, the Civil War(s) in Myanmar are genuine civil conflicts. If anything, the military is actually left with no clear options in Rakhine. One the one hand, if the military fired on one, some or all of the various armed factions, it could result in a bloodbath which would be followed by a more prolonged and wider ranging conflict. On the other hand, if the military did nothing, localised violence would ostensibly continue for the foreseeable future.

The military therefore has taken a role wherein it has attempted to target the most prominent armed factions and the success of this method has been mixed, although in recent weeks, things have in fact, improved.

Beyond this, it is not clear which individuals the US would sanction? Would it be an impoverished Buddhist armed with torches of fire and daggers? Would it be a Rohingya militant with a ramshackle machine gun and 10 loyal followers? In a conflict fought by anonymous, local and in many cases crudely armed individuals, methods such as sanctions simply don’t work. Even if such individuals could be identified, they are sanction-proof because of their poverty.

Thus, the only logical conclusion to such American schemes would either be an admission that they simply cannot be implemented, or otherwise, Washington will simply sanction Myanmar’s military leaders, effectively blaming them for the carnage caused by ‘un-sanctionable’ locals.

Given Washington’s appetite for sanctions, particularly when it comes to a country pivoting ever closer to China and Russia, the answer is self-evident. The unthinking narrative on the Rohingya crisis, has indeed been one where the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s military) and/or State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi are uniformly blamed for all of the ills in Rakhine and elsewhere in the country.

This narrative is as false as it is simplistic. The Tatmadaw and Aung San Suu Kyi are by no means heroes, but nor are they villains. If anything, they are guilty of not being able to clearly communicate the genuinely complex nature of the conflict, one which differs considerably from the straightforward  Syrian conflict where a secular, modern, tolerant government is at war with a myriad of savage jihadist groups and in the case of certain Kurdish factions, heavily armed ethno-nationalists with ties to Syria’s long-time state enemies.

Furthermore, the Tatmadaw and Aung San Suu Kyi are guilty of not being able to come up with a concrete plan to end the complex web of violence. To be fair though, no other international body has been able to come up with a plan either and judging by the remarks from the US State Department, Washington doesn’t even understand the nature of the conflict. The US merely understands that there is a burgeoning Chinese and Russian economic partner in the midst of conflicts that are ripe for exploitation”.

Washington prepares to sanction ‘un-sanctionable’ actors in Myanmar

While the US has only alienated the leadership in Myanmar, China has proposed a far more realistic and respectful solution to the conflict, one which in keeping with China’s geo-political model, seeks to calm regional tensions through the incentives of prosperity. As Myanmar’s stability is essential for the development of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, it is in the interests of Myanmar, China and Bangladesh, which is housing many Rohingya refugees, to work cooperatively to calm tensions and pave the way for future economic cooperation whose benefits will be felt on all sides, but particularly among the poorer nations involved in such efforts.

Foreign Minister Wang described China’s three point peace plan as follows:

1. Insure the continuation and expansion of a regional ceasefire in Rakhine State

Wang Yi stated,

“The first phase is to effect a ceasefire on the ground, to return to stability and order, so the people can enjoy peace and no longer be forced to flee. With the hard work of all sides, at present, the first phase’s aim has already basically been achieved, and the key is to prevent a flare-up, especially that there is no rekindling the flames of war”.

2. Myanmar and Bangladesh must work cooperatively to settle refugee issue

Once violence continues to subside and conditions are prepared to make Rakhine State a safe and relatively stable state, Naypyidaw and Dhaka must work to facilitate an orderly return of refugees. Part of this process will likely include an attempt to determine which refugees are actually citizens of Myanmar versus which ones are technically Bangladeshi citizens who had been living in Myanmar. As many Rohingya are not actually citizens of Myanmar, such a repatriation process may require both Myanmar and Bangladesh to agree on the status of long-term displaced or de-facto stateless individuals.

Here, China will act as a mediator in the most difficult part of the peace process.

3. Engage in prosperity building initiatives for a long-term resolution

Wang Yi stated,

“The final phase should be to work toward a long-term solution based on poverty alleviation”.

This clearly indicates a commitment to engage in the completion and future development of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor as well as cultivating Bangladesh’s increasingly enthusiastic stance on participation in One Belt–One Road.

China’s proposals are clearly in-line with the “win-win” principles which President Xi Jinping often cites. The Chinese peace plan looks to take a situation which had to potential to worsen Myanmar-Bangladesh relations and turn it into a positive situation wherein both neighbours work to solve a common crisis for a mutually beneficial conclusion, thus paving the way for future peacetime cooperation.

Likewise, China has refrained from casting moral aspersions on any side in a multi-party conflict whose origins are considerable old. In doing so, China has maintained its relationship with the Tatmadaw while acknowledging the need for a regionally derived peace process to ensure peace for the civilians of Rakhine State, while not working to undermine internal security operations, let alone the dignity of Myanmar.

While the US and other western actors have been keen on destabilising Myanmar once it became clear that Myanmar stood to play a prominent role in One Belt–One Road, at this point, western sanctions on Myanmar’s government, will only push the Tatmadaw closer to China. As for sanctioning local actors in Rakhine State, this will have no effect as many of these individuals don’t even have any formal assets.

In this sense, by playing the slow and steady game, China has outplayed the US which itself appeared not fully certain in respect of having a precise game-plan for Myanmar.

The biggest reaming question mark is India. India has taken it upon itself to align fully with the government in Myanmar. Lacking the subtlety and multilateral nature of the Chinese proposals, India hoped to turn the situation into a zero-sum ‘charm offensive’ wherein after being wooed by India’s Premier Modi,  Naypyidaw would be drawn into an effectively binding relationship with India that if Modi got his way, would force Myanmar to give Indian economic initiatives a preferential position vis-a-vis One Belt–One Road.

In the end, China’s proposals are more realistic and since India like China, has good relations with Myanmar, there is no need for New Delhi to complete with China over Myanmar’s friendship and good will.  The problem is that, India under the ruling BJP led coalition tends to refuse seeing international relations as a matter of win-win mutuality and instead prefers to see such things as a mutually exclusive zero-sum game where India can only win if China and her traditional partners are on the losing end.

The choice for Myanmar ought to be an embrace of the Chinese proposals, while India should realise that the situation in Myanmar presents an opportunity to mend fences with China, rather than representing another front on which to engage in effectively meaningless competition with the undisputed economic powerhouse of the 21st century.

Statements from Beijing indicating that both Myanmar and Bangladesh have accepted the proposals as a basis for moving forward, is an objectively positive development.

Understanding the Myanmar/Rohingya conflict is best achieved through understanding international non-alignment

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Why Trump revoked former CIA Director’s security clearance

John Brennan loses his security clearance under suspicion that he was monetizing intelligence – this claim put forth by Senator Rand Paul.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

On Wednesday August 15, 2018, President Trump revoked former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance. The announcement was a significant story on Fox News as shown here:

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

President Trump […] revoked the security clearance for former CIA Director John Brennan, the White House announced Wednesday, in the first decision to come from a review of access for several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders read a statement on behalf of the president during the start of the press briefing, saying Brennan “has a history that calls his credibility into question.”

The statement also claimed Brennan had been “leveraging” the clearance to make “wild outbursts” and claims against the Trump administration in the media.

The President has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it, and that’s what he’s doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action,” Sanders said Wednesday.

A further report and video on this matter noted that John Brennan was the first of a fairly significant number of former Obama-era intelligence officials whose security clearances are under review for possible revocation. These agents are shown below:

Naturally, the group targeted for review is crying foul and pushing the narrative that “Trump is afraid of us and what we know…”, though this does not bear up under the scrutiny of a nearly two-year investigation that has revealed absolutely no sign of a collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agencies.

The curious nature of American government and politics is worth noting here. In addition this newspiece raises a question:

Why are former intelligence agents allowed to keep their security clearances upon termination of their employment?

This is very strange. When corporate employees in a secured firm are fired or resign or retire, their security clearances are revoked immediately. This is how a company protects its information from falling into competitor’s hands or even to hostile powers beyond the corporate world. It is standard operating procedure.

But when the US Intelligence services are concerned, this is apparently not happening. It is very surprising to see the names on this consideration list.

This concern was shared by a healthy number of Republican Senators, as reported by CNN:

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, said Thursday he doesn’t understand why former employees have access to classified information at all.

He said he hardly believes Brennan was assisting the Trump White House — a reason given for why some former intelligence community employees can maintain their security clearance — and that Trump’s concern has been individuals monetizing their access to classified information for personal gain.

“Unless there is some justification not to,” Cornyn said, suggesting it might be worth having all former employees lose their clearances when they are done being in office.

And he wasn’t the only one. Of the public statements made by Republican senators, more sounded supportive of the President than against.

While President Trump’s reasoning for revoking Mr. Brennan’s clearance is well-explained, it seems very peculiar that such an issue would even exist at all.

A more detailed report is shown in the video below. This is a far more serious issue than even the US networks are revealing.

Continue Reading

Latest

Can America Ever Come Together Again?

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org:


If ex-CIA Director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would have lost a lot more than his security clearance.

He would have been challenged to a duel and shot.

“Trump’s … performance in Helsinki,” Brennan had said, “exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was … treasonous.”

Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social Security?

CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose unique experience, knowledge and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a national crisis.

Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.

Who trashed this tradition?

Was it not the former heads of the security agencies — CIA, FBI, director of national intelligence — who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one might expect from antifa?

Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held, if they descend into cable-TV hatred and hostility?

Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating families of detained illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into Auschwitz.

“Other governments have separated mothers and children” was Hayden’s caption.

Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?

Thursday, The New York Times decried Trump’s accusation that the media are “the enemy of the people.”

“Insisting that truths you don’t like are ‘fake news’ is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists ‘the enemy of the people’ is dangerous, period,” said the Times.

Fair enough, but is it not dangerous for a free press to be using First Amendment rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant and traitor?

The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump. But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game with Democrats?

And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe-organized national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic “collusion” against him?

If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are mortal enemies who want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?

We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the ideological, social and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even post-Trump, we can ever come together again.

Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … Some of those folks … are irredeemable, but … they are not America.”

When Clinton’s reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks. Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a bill-signing ceremony:

“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” America was “never that great”?

Cuomo’s press secretary hastened to explain, “When the president speaks about making America great again … he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women’s contributions.”

Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.

In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.

Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not responding to his message, Obama trashed these folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave new world:

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10 years later, deride and dismiss as “Trump’s base.”

What Clinton, Cuomo and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and ideological wars of America today.

Most media elites accept the historic indictment — that before the Progressives came, this country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and that its history had been a long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gays who were denied equality.

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.

Continue Reading

Latest

Are the mainstream U.S. ‘news’ media evil?

Mainstream media refuses to give airtime to intelligence professionals who can prove the current Russia-DNC narrative is a complete fabrication.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Eric Zuesse, published originally by The Saker:


William Binney, the U.S. National Security Agency’s former technical director for global analysis, has, for the past year, been globe-trotting to investigate the actual evidence regarding the official Russiagate investigations, and he finds that the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, who is prosecuting Russia’s Government, can only accuse Russian officials, not convict any of them on at least the important charges, because conclusive evidence exists and has already been made public online, making clear that the important accusations against those officials are false. However, Binney can’t get any of the U.S. major ‘news’ media’s interest in this fact, nor even into openly discussing it with them. Apparently, they don’t want to know. Binney is knocking on their doors, and they refuse to answer.

Patrick Lawrence, at the non-mainstream U.S. newsmedium Consortium News, headlined on Monday August 13th, “‘Too Big to Fail’: Russia-gate One Year After VIPS Showed a Leak, Not a Hack” and he reported what Binney has found and has been trying to get the major U.S. ‘news’media to present to the American public.

The “VIPS” there is Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and they are 17 whistleblowing former high officials of the CIA, NSA, State Department, and other U.S. officials with top secret national-security clearances, who jointly signed and published on 24 July 2017, their report, which likewise was at Consortium News, “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence”, in which they confirmed the validity of a 9 July 2017 report that had been published by Elizabeth Vos of Disobedient Media . com, which was titled “New Research Shows Guccifer 2.0 Files Were Copied Locally, Not Hacked” and which I then reported in more ordinary language seven days later under the headline “Russiagate Exposed: It’s a Fraud”. I quoted there the analysis’s basic finding “that the DNC computer network which the media tells us and the DNC tells us was hacked by the Russians, … was physically accessed by someone within close proximity of the DNC” and not outside the United States (Russia or anywhere else). The original research-report had been done by an anonymous person who called himself “the forensicator,” and he had sent it to Adam Carter, another highly technically knowledgeable person, who happened to be at Disobedient Media, and who then worked with Vos to prepae her article on it.

Binney, as the nation’s now-retired top NSA expert in the analysis of such matters, then followed up, during the past year, in order to probe more deeply, by contacting various individuals who had been involved behind the scenes; and Patrick Lawrence’s article was a report of what Binney had found. It’s this:

The forensic scientists working with VIPS continued their research and experiments after VIPS50 was published. So have key members of the VIPS group, notably William Binney, the National Security Agency’s former technical director for global analysis and designer of programs the agency still uses to monitor internet traffic. Such work continues as we speak, indeed. This was always the intent: “Evidence to date” was the premise of VIPS50. Over the past year there have been confirmations of the original thesis and some surprises that alter secondary aspects of it. Let us look at the most significant of these findings.

At the time I reported on the findings of VIPS and associated forensic scientists, that the most fundamental evidence that the events of summer 2016 constituted a leak, not a hack, was the transfer rate—the speed at which data was copied. The speed proven then was an average of 22.7 megabytes per second. …

The fastest internet transfer speed achieved, during the New Jersey–to–Britain test, was 12.0 megabytes of data per second. Since this time it has emerged from G-2.0’s metadata that the detected average speed—the 22.7 megabytes per second—included peak speeds that ran as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, impossible over the internet. “You’d need a dedicated, leased, 400–megabit line all the way to Russia to achieve that result,” Binney said in a recent interview. … That remains the bedrock evidence of the case VIPS and others advance without qualification. “No one—including the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA—has come out against this finding,” Binney said Monday. …

The identity of Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be a Romanian hacker but which the latest Mueller indictment claims is a construct of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, has never been proven. The question is what G–2.0 did with or to the data in question. It turns out that both more, and less, is known about G–2.0 than was thought to have been previously demonstrated. This work has been completed only recently. It was done by Binney in collaboration with Duncan Campbell, a British journalist who has followed the Russia-gate question closely.

Peak Speed Established

Binney visited Campbell in Brighton, England, early this past spring. They examined all the metadata associated with the files G–2.0 has made public. They looked at the number of files, the size of each, and the time stamps at the end of each. It was at this time that Binney and Campbell established the peak transfer rate at 49.1 megabytes per second. … “Now you need to prove everything you might think about him,” Binney told me. “We have no way of knowing anything about him or what he has done, apart from manipulating the files. …

The conclusions initially drawn on time and location in VIPS50 are now subject to these recent discoveries. “In retrospect, giving ‘equal importance’ status to data pertaining to the locale was mistaken,” Ray McGovern, a prominent VIPS member, wrote in a recent note. “The key finding on transfer speed always dwarfed it in importance.” … 

How credible are those indictments in view of what is now known about G–2.0?

Binney told me: “Once we proved G–2.0 is a fabrication and a manipulator, the timing and location questions couldn’t be answered but really didn’t matter. I don’t right now see a way of absolutely proving either time or location. But this doesn’t change anything. We know what we know: The intrusion into the Democratic National Committee mail was a local download—wherever ‘local’ is.” That doesn’t change. As to Rosenstein, he’ll have a lot to prove.”

However, yet another technically knowledgeable analyst of the available evidence, George Eliason, claims that to assert that there were only “leaks” and not also “hacks” would clearly be wrong, because there were both. On August 14th, he bannered at Washington’s Blog, “Beyond The DNC Leak: Hacks and Treason” and he wrote:

There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks. All are separate events.

Here’s what’s different in the information I’ve compiled.

The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.

I’ll show why the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.

The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.

At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to State Department servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators.

This gives some credence to the Seth Rich leak (DNC leak story) as an act of patriotism. If the leak came through Seth Rich, it may have been because he saw foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential election. No political operative is going to argue with the presumed president-elect over foreign policy. The leaker may have been trying to do something about it. I’m curious what information Wikileaks might have.

Eliason’s analysis doesn’t support Robert Mueller’s indictments any more than the others do. All are essentially incompatible with the accusations (including ones which now have become also indictments) from Mueller. Moreover, as Patrick Lawrence noted, “Indictments are not evidence and do not need to contain evidence. That is supposed to come out at trial, which is very unlikely to ever happen. Nevertheless, the corporate media has treated the indictments as convictions.” Maybe that’s the biggest crime of all.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending