 This is Think Tech Hawaii. Community matters here. Good afternoon and welcome to Asian Review. I'm your host, Lily Ong. In 2015, the world faced the largest human migration since World War II due to the outbreak of the Syrian crisis. Today, we're seeing something quite similar, not quite as large a magnitude, but comparable in intensity. We have with us here Dr. T. Mian Thend, President of the Myanmar Association of Hawaii to talk to us about the Rohingya crisis. Welcome to the show, Dr. Mian. Thank you very much for having me. As you know, Dr. Mian, with any kind of problems and crisis, we have to look back at the history tracing rules in order to more effectively address it. So why don't we take a look back at history of the Rohingya state and see what might have contributed to the crisis today? If you look back at history, we are going back many, many years, because way back even during the British times, Burma was administered under India. And India included both East and West Pakistan. And what we have is a situation where most of the people from the East Pakistan were migrating into Myanmar at that time. And the British, of course, used the conquer and divide rule. The lands belonged to the kings and queens of Burma, which they took away in 1885. And therefore, when they became the government, they owned the land. Now, remember, it's least whole not be simple, just like in Hawaii, where the king owned all the lands. So the British showed favoritism to those in the East Pakistan area, because they wanted them to be faithful to them and loyal to them against the Burmese that they thought would fight them, which, of course, they did. So from the beginning, during the time of the British, there was infighting between the two. Land were given to the East Bengalis. And then the British went on to fight the war and with the Japanese in 1942, when the Japanese advance, the British tried to protect India, which, again, I want to remind everyone, was at that time East and West Pakistan was together with India. Now, when the British came, I mean, when the time came for the Japanese to attempt to occupy the area, was it true that, you know, like most of the nationalist leaders in Southeast Asia, General Aung Sanh actually aligned with the Japanese to try to drive out the British in the beginning? Yes, yes, he did. But at that time, later on, he did not go along with the Japanese. It did—I don't know what happened at that time, but that there was a falling out. And the British retreated back and they armed the Bengalis at that particular point, the Northern Rakhine State. And they left thinking that these people would hold a fort, you know, and fight off the Japanese. But instead, those people killed the local Native Arakanese people and tried to encamp there. So the grab for land and one of the ambassadors explained it as expansion through migration, what began even at that time. So going back to history, a long, long time back, the partition of the British Empire of India, East Pakistan, West Pakistan, all of that, when the lines were drawn, the Muslims in that area asked that the two districts of Moundaw and Bouddhido was to be included in the East Pakistan. But the person who made the decision, Mr. Janan, who was the head of the Muslim community, said that he looked at it and said, this area properly belongs to Burma. So he partitioned it that way. And there has always been that particular resentment on the part of the Muslims that that should have been their land. So, you know, it goes back many, many years. It's not just now. Now, when General Aung San came into power, he had the opportunity to set up a federal state. At least that's what he tried to do. And he got assassinated. Why were the Burmese people so against, you know, the setup of a federal system? I don't know if the Burmese were against a federal system. I do know that there was chaos after his assassination. The plans to go towards a federal system were being discussed at that point. But I think that there were already a lot of resentment interracially because when the British administered Burma under India, there was a lot of migration from India to Burma. And they say that the Rangoon port was second only to New York City in receiving immigrants from India. So the layers were the top was the British, and the middle was the Indians, and of course the bottom were the native Burmese. So we had that conflict, and that was more evident than the federation. So it sounds like there have been maybe some ceasefires, some truces, some reorganizations, but wars have always gone on in Burma. So is the situation in Rakhine today simply a long tradition of Burmese politics? I think it is a long tradition, not Burmese politics as much like this former ambassador said, was expansion through migration. You have to remember that Bangladesh, which was at that time East Pakistan, but now Bangladesh, was or is rather the size of Georgia, the state in the United States if you want a comparison. Burma is the size of Texas. And in the Bangladesh side, the population is 165 million. Burma is 65 million. So there is a population expansion problem there. So you will have migration that comes across the border because there is no space. It's one of the most densely populated areas in the world. So you have a conflict within there, and people will come over trying to expand. And they did want at that time of the British when the British left, as well as up to now, those two areas to be part of what they call a protected area so that they could live there. And in some ways, the Burmese look upon it as an expansion of Bangladesh into the Burmese territory, and they see it as an affront to their sovereignty. But what about the other parts? I mean, Myanmar borders with other countries, Northwest is, there's some, you know, violence to incursion. But why is it particularly grave in the Rakhine area? I think that the other areas are not as covered for some reason by the news media. And it is going on. There is no territorial encroachment. This one has territorial encroachment. That is one of the main issues here. Plus, you have a lot of press for some reason. And there are allegations of, you know, expenses being given by outside entities, you know, from ISIS to al-Qaeda and so forth. And they are focusing their PR campaign on this particular group. Do you not think that actually international players at play here? Yes, I think so. But, you know, you can't pinpoint it. Yeah. Well, Myanmar has its resources. I mean, back in the 80s, they discovered a gas field just off the coast of Rakhine. So, I think there's other international players that's interested in that. Could you maybe name a few of them? Well, the major investors in Myanmar has been China, Thailand. Those two come to mind. I know there's maybe Indonesia, too. But in the Arakhan coastline, there is an economic development entity, or a zone, as they call it, and they hope to extract gas and oil there. There's also others on the other side of the coastal. But that's the first one that they're working on. So, I'm sure China has interest in keeping the area peaceful. Thailand would also want the same thing, because they are coming. There's a road from Bangkok to Burma through the way area. And there's to be a giant port to be built. So, yeah, they have other outside entities who also want to have peace in that area. And because Myanmar lacked the technical and financial expertise to extract the gas, they brought in a French conglomerate, Total, which is the fourth ranking gas company in the world. So, last year, I heard that Total actually extracted 11 million tons of liquefied nitrogen. I'm just wondering where did all the money go? That I don't know. It certainly didn't go to the country, although there might have been some. What I do know, and this is from a Labour's point of view, is that the people who came to extract and build infrastructure and so forth brought their own people. They didn't—what I would imagine that in a developing country, if you want to help a country get skills and learn to stand on their own two feet, you would want a training component so that people there learn how to extract, learn how to do the nitty gritty of all the management of such an infrastructure. But they didn't do that. So, the Burmese who have been in isolation for a long, long time without much education and without skills are not being empowered. And there was a report, a confidential one from IMF that came out that showed that the gas revenue only contributed to less than 1% of the total revenue. And it would have to—if they would actually calculate it would amount to close to 60% of the revenue. So, I think money is coming up, but it's probably not channeled to the right resources. There were of course rumors that they are being banked in the offshore accounts of Singapore. Yeah. It is possible. But it depends on who's in the question China would have its own banking system in Thailand too. And the years of isolation again, I go back to that, is because we had no banking system and everything was cash. So, when people come in with lots of money and they get revenues, they can't really put it in the banks over there because the system really doesn't exist very well. I mean, they don't function very well. It's only been like four or five years where credit cards were introduced. And so, I'm not surprised that it would go to a place like Singapore, which is like a financial capital in South East Asia. And a safe haven. Yes, a safe haven. Right. Well, thank you, Dr. Mia. We're going to take a little short break here. And when we come back, we're going to talk more about the other role the other international players will play in the Rohingya crisis. Thank you. This is Think Tech Hawaii, raising public awareness. Hi, I'm Pete McGinnis-Mark. And every Monday at one o'clock, I present Think Tech Hawaii's research in Manoa, where we bring together researchers from across the campus to describe a whole series of scientifically interesting topics of interest both to Hawaii and around the world. So, hopefully you can join me one o'clock Monday afternoon for Think Tech Hawaii's research in Manoa. Aloha. My name is Mark Shklav. I'm the host of Think Tech Hawaii's Law Across the Sea. Law Across the Sea comes on every other Monday at 11 a.m. Please join us. I like to bring in guests that talk about all types of things that come across the sea to Hawaii, not just law, love, people, ideas, history. Please join us for Law Across the Sea. Aloha. Welcome back to the show. Today, we have with us Dr. Timian Fiend, President of the Myanmar Association of Hawaii to talk to us about the Rohingya crisis. Dr. Mia, now going back to the issue of the missing money, do you think that's why sanctions don't really work on Burma, because they are somewhat, you know, the Burmese military is somewhat insulated from sanctions? Well, I think sanctions don't work because not everybody's following the sanctions. There are so many who are still working with Burma, and, you know, not having anything to some investment is plenty for the country. They can survive. They've worked with China, they've worked with Thailand, they've worked with ASEAN. ASEAN is a very big player over there. And so I don't think sanctions work because there are people who are still willing to play, whether or not there are sanctions coming from the UN or from the U.S., particularly U.S. and the British. But I think that they're willing to go forward and work with what they have. So that's why it doesn't work. I don't think it works. It hurts the vulnerable and the poor people. Do you think the ASEAN players, the ASEAN members, should be adopting a stronger role in this human tragedy? Well, yes, they should. And they have been. I think they have advised, they have given guidance, and they're very sympathetic to what's happening. And going back, talking about China again, it's obvious they have a vested interest in peace and harmony in the region since they have a pipeline, you know, going from the Bay of Bengal all the way to southern China. Do you think they might have played a role in perhaps instigating some of the rebels to push back the Burmese military? Oh, I don't think so. I don't think. I mean, China wants peace and harmony. I don't think China was instigating. There might have been others who were instigating, but not China. And it was not, you know, unprovoked. I think August 25th, the attacks on the government post, they were police outposts, which, you know, are not as heavily guarded as others. And there were so many deaths involved, that brought the backlash from the military to say, you know, there's a major conflict and we have to defend our country. And they came back and you know, what military always does. And that's what led the exodus of all these people leaving the country. Now, when you have just like what happened in Las Vegas, you have, you know, people shooting each other and stuff, what people will get out of there, right? So there were tons of people leaving the country. And I think that the China would not have wanted that kind of backlash from either side. They want to have peace and stability in that particular region. It seems that fighting has intensified this because there have been new insurgent groups like the Arakhan Army. That group was just about obscure. How did it come so quickly and, you know, aggressively onto the scene? Well, the theory is that they were backed by al-Qaeda, the ISIS, and there's a think tank somewhere that supposedly, you know, thought about how they were going to maneuver this. And they knew exactly what the Burmese army would do, because if they attacked the post, they would say there would be a backlash. And with the backlash, there would be an exodus. And then they would have a PR campaign about how terrible the Myanmar people were, or, you know, the Tamil Nadu was. So it was all well thought out. This is what the theory is. And everybody's been really talking about, you know, why doesn't the lady do something? And actually, people don't seem to understand that even though she won the election, she doesn't control—it's just not like the United States where, you know, the president is the commander-in-chief. That's not the way the Constitution is written. She does not control the Department of Defense, the whole ministry, and border phase. The three ministries that are right now in the thick of the whole area, she doesn't do that. So people are, you know, trying to criticize her and throw stones at her and saying, oh, we have to take away her Nobel Peace Prize without really understanding and going into the real nitty gritty of why this is happening and why she is silent. You know, you have to take a look at all the things that's happening. You don't know who the players are. They're intervening factors. And at that point in time, when you're thinking about what all the solutions might be, silence is golden. And she needed to be silent, and she was. She thought through and she's come out with a plan, which I think is accepted by all parties, both international and national. Well, fair enough, she's not a president, but she's regarded as the de facto president. Are there other peaceful methods she might have used in negotiating between the different parties, even though she doesn't have direct control over them? I'm sure that, you know, she has been in touch with them and talked about, you know, what would be the best way to handle the situation. And she did do what she could do, which was the foreign ministry, which is under her. She did have a diplomatic briefing, and she invited everybody to come and see for themselves what was going on instead of listening to the press. The press seemed to be so one-sided, only talking about the Rohingyas, instead of also talking about the Arakenis and the natives who were also displaced and also went through, you know, horrendous acts of violence. They were victims, too, in many, many ways. But nobody covered that. They only covered one side. And so she invited everybody from the diplomatic court to come in. And I understand the UN also went with them, and they've seen for themselves what has happened. And they've come to say, yes, you know, we see what's happening and we're willing to help you. She asked for help from all the parties to bring peace and stability to that area. And as of yesterday, the foreign ministry and I think one of the ministers went to Bangladesh, and they came up to an agreement that they would go through bringing back the refugees, so to speak. You don't know who their refugees from this side or that side or back and forth. And they will go through the whole scenario of showing citizenship and allowing those who are truly citizens to come back. So they are considering granting citizenship to the Rohingyas or just selected? No, it would... See, Burma has a citizenship law that's not like the United States. In the United States, if you're born, you have the right to a citizen, just like President Obama had to prove he was born in Hawaii. But over there, just like Japan and in Korea, just because you're born there doesn't mean that you get the right to a citizen. The same is true in Burma. The way the citizenship is is through ancestry. If your parents were Burmese citizens, then you could. And you have to prove that. And it used to be, you know, culturally, and I thought it was just culture, we had to know our genealogy. If I met you, I would say I am the main thing, the daughter of, so and so and so and so, the sister of. And we would say what our genealogy was. And it is not just culture. There was a legal reason for it, because we are proving we are Burmese citizens. I didn't know that till, you know, very recently. So if you look at it, these people will have to show that they are born of Burmese citizens. But have the Rohingyas not been there for 200 years, a couple hundred years? Yeah. And if that's not the case, then they are not citizens. They came from Bangladesh. Is there reason they are referred to as Bengalis rather than Burmese? Well, because people believe that they are illegal immigrants come from Bangladesh. That's why they're Bengalis. The word Rohingya does not exist. Actually, Derek Tonkin, who is a former British ambassador, has gone through massive research, and he said he went into the digital library of India and found no reference to Rohingya. Rohingya is a word that was used by the Bengali country and language as somebody, the Muslim from Arakhan. That's what it refers to. There is no ethnic group. It is more of an identity group. There is no ethnic group that's called Rohingya. Interesting. Yeah. Now tracing back to the 60s when Burmese military implemented the forecast strategy, basically the cut of the food, the farms, intelligence, and recruits, and that seems to have carried on into modern day. What can State Councilor Sujee do more to allow access of these basic essentials into the community, into the Rakhine State? Into the Rakhine State. I think they have worked out a plan. It is a five-step plan, the details of which I don't know. But I know that the international community has access to it, and each of them will be following it step by step. First is to have peace and stability in the area. Everybody is protected. It's not just what we call the Rohingyas, but also the native population of the Arakhanis, the Hindus, all of those who live there. They also have peace and security and not be threatened by the other groups. We need to have peace in the whole area. She sticks to her rule and her moral compass of the rule of law. She repeats that if the law is this, everybody should be following the law. Nobody should be beating somebody up or killing somebody or whatever. Everybody should have the protection of the law. And from there, then she wants economic development. And what we have is at fault, the NGO, especially the international NGOs, they want to help the poorest of the poor and the ones who are the most victimized. And of course that goes into the quote-unquote Rohingya population. And there's resentment from the native groups, the Arakhanis and the Hindus, because they don't get the support that they think that these NGOs should be giving them. I see. Well, thank you so much, Dr. May. We've come to the end of the show. I hope you've learned as much as I do regarding the other side of stories so that the next time that we want to engage in a knee-jerk moral reaction to State Councilor Sunjee, we will think back to the historical narrative. Thank you for being with us on the show today, Dr. May. Thank you for watching. Thank you.