 Good afternoon and welcome to the final panel of the 35th annual Norison Marjorie Bendensohn Epic International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities. My name is Jessie Newman and I am a member of the 2019-2020 Epic Colloquium. I graduated from Tufts in May and due to the switch in days of this symposium and now are now living in Washington, D.C. It is an honor to be speaking with these panels today who will be discussing the prevalence of genocide in the 21st century and contemporary events that are of concern to the international community. In particular, this panel will touch on the Rohingya crisis and what is happening in Xinjiang. We chose the topic of this panel because we wanted to emphasize that genocide and the perpetuation of mass atrocities are not only matters of history but are very prevalent today. Through this colloquium, we immerse ourselves in the work of genocide prevention and it is important to always be aware of human rights abuses occurring around the world and to work as an international community to stop them and prevent them in the future. So I'm just going to touch on the format of this panel and then I will allow our three esteemed panelists to speak and deliver their introductory remarks. So each panelist will have five minutes for their opening remarks and then after all three panelists have gone, there will be a time for a conversation amongst three of you. I will ask questions. The audience is more than welcome to send in questions through the Q&A function, which you can find at the bottom of your screen. And then after that we will move to breakout rooms where you will have a more, a chance for a more intimate conversation with the panelists that you choose to enter the breakout room with. So our first panelist will be Dr. Adam Jones. Dr. Jones is a professor of political science and head of international relations at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan. He is the author of Genocide, a comprehensive introduction, which is the most widely used textbook in genocide studies. He is also the author of Chomsky and Genocide under submission to Genocide Studies and Prevention and is finalizing work on a new collection of essays, provisionally titled Sites of Genocide. Dr. Jones, the floor is all yours and you have five minutes. Thank you very much. I might just mention that that Chomsky piece has now appeared in Genocide Studies and Prevention and can be read online. It's a pleasure to be with you here today beaming in from Valladolid in Mexico and contemplating the question of genocide in the 21st century at a, I think, particularly tense and volatile moment in global politics and international relations. And maybe that's an appropriate place to begin tracing something of the process of evolution of this field that we call Comparative Genocide Studies and also the evolution of counter genocide strategies and advocacy projects. I think if we cast our minds back to the glory days of the 1990s, I said slightly ironically, but there was a sense, I think, back in that immediate post Cold War period that many of the impediments to preventing and intervening in cases of genocide had diminished and that there was now a greater possibility of and commitment to genocide prevention and intervention, a more multilateral sense of obligation in that regard. And although in our field and in our world, the 1990s are remembered among other things for some very brutal and canonical now genocides, whether in the Balkans or especially in Rwanda and Congo, we also saw a substantial range of projects and norms evolving in the international legal sphere among a number of national governments to try to confront this phenomenon systematically for the first time with some successes, I think perhaps most notably the events in East Timor in 1999. One of the senses that we had at that time was that in the modern 1990s, 2000s, we were finally going to see an evolution of the world beyond some of those cofactors that have always been associated with genocide, particularly things like ultra nationalism, religious extremism, xenophobia, and the like. And I think when we look from our position today, you can see that many of those hopes in retrospect were naive. And it has been a sobering experience to watch in the last decade or two, the revival of various forms of religious freedom, the revival of forms of ultra nationalism and xenophobia, even in countries that I had listed in previous editions of my textbook as success stories, countries that seem to have found some way to advance a kind of inclusive multicultural model. I'm thinking in particular of the United States for reasons that will be obvious to most of us, but also, and in some ways even more disturbing, India, which I had previously cited as an example of a country that, despite many outbreaks of intercommunal conflict, had held together and had advanced a kind of cosmopolitan and integrated vision of citizenship. As we know under Modi and his nationalist wing, we are seeing things moving rapidly in the opposite direction, stripping of citizenship in Eastern India, in particular targeting of Muslims and so on. So we seem to have fallen back into a number of pitfalls that bode ill for the immediate future of conflict prevention and genocide prevention. Maybe the last point I'll make in these introductory comments also refers to something that has evolved in comparative genocide studies over the last two or three decades, and that is an increasing focus on structural and institutional forms of violence, including genocide. And I think in this age of COVID, where we are seeing some of the structural imbalances, whether in class terms, gender terms, the global ethnic hierarchy, we need to recognize that the future challenges of prevention and intervention I think cannot solely be aimed at the type of typical political military genocides that we stereotypically associate with the term. We need to come to grips with the fact that many more people die annually from structural forms of violence, including I think genocidal forms, and our vision of what constitutes conflict prevention and genocide prevention in the future needs to be informed by that. Thank you. Thank you so much. So our next panelist will be Professor John Packer. John Packer is Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Center at the University of Ottawa. Professor Packer is an experienced practitioner with some 20 years working for intergovernmental organizations, including working Geneva for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Labor Organization, and for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, investigating serious human rights violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and also extraditional executions, arbitrary attention, forced disappearances, the use of forensic sciences, the use of civil defense forces, and the independence of judges and lawyers throughout the world. Professor Packer, you have the floor. Well, thank you very much for the introduction and let me just say I'm glad to speak after Dr. Jones's remarks because what he said out is essentially to say that no society is immune from the possibility of genocide and notwithstanding our efforts to develop means of prevention in terms of some structures that risk simply exists. And one thing I'll just mention a bit further to my own experiences, I spent nine years as legal advisor and director of the OSCE High Commissioner National Minorities Office and worked precisely in former Soviet Union Eastern Europe exactly on interethnic conflicts, trying to develop the linkages through integration programs with the European Union, NATO, bilateral treaties, multilateral treaties, constitutional reform, all those things including institutional change, educational programs and so forth that would eliminate the possibility. And I think what we can only say is that I still believe that's a correct approach, but the best we achieve in that is a reduction of risk. We don't eliminate the possibility. And we see that. I too, Dr. Jones, would used to refer to India as a relatively good example of integrated multi-ethnicity and relative respect and so forth, world's largest democracy. But we see how easy it is for societies to slip backwards or populism and nationalism to drive towards genocidal tendencies. I'm just going to say a few things about the Rohingya case because I've been involved in the Rohingya case since 1992 when I was a UN staff member, first assisted the first UN Special Arpitor and traveled to Rakhine State and that was in the shadow of the fourth major exodus of Rohingya in 1992. A lot of people think that the Rohingya case is something new and actually here in Canada, from where I'm speaking, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights did a poll about a year or two ago and found that 96% of Canadians had never heard of Rohingya until basically the 2017 mass exodus. But let me just say a few things about that. Prior to the 2017 exodus of Rohingya, there have been four large exoduses going back to 1978 and already about 35 to 40% of all Rohingya in the world had already fled. So what I want to underline in this regard is it was no surprise. It should have been no surprise. Dr. Jones mentioned the Rwanda genocide. That's often known as the preventable genocide because even a year before the 2004 mass killings in Rwanda, the UN Special Arpitor on independent Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Wally Bakr and Ajay, traveled to Rwanda and he issued a report to the then Human Rights Commission where he actually literally said there's going to be a genocide if nobody does something and if nobody acts. So we know that these are not, genocides do not occur as a kind of spontaneous big surprise sudden event. If you look at the wonderful work of Genocide Watch and Dr. Gregory Stanton, he's now well known, 10 stages or steps of genocide. Genocides are preceded by progressive foreseeable steps and in the case of the Rohingya, we had 30 years of public reporting at the United Nations before the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Council as it's now called, the United Nations General Assembly, special rapporteurs, working groups, so forth and so on. So this was something that Dr. Mangzarni, a specialist and actually a Berman, I think Berman from Myanmar has labeled as a slow burning genocide. It's well known in this regard, but it makes the point that we should be watching for these matters. And if we again look a bit more at the Rohingya genocide, what does it teach us? It teaches us a few things. I mean, unfortunately, it teaches us that genocides can occur without consequences to their perpetrators. At the moment, there are very few consequences for Myanmar or for any individuals connected with the genocide. In fact, about 85% of all Rohingya have now fled their country of origin, living abroad. And I dare to say the Rohingya genocide is an example of a successful genocide. It's pretty much done. I mean, there's about four and a half, four hundred fifty thousand, five hundred thousand, maybe six hundred thousand left in the country, a quarter of whom are in internment camps. The government is quite satisfied with this result. No one has been held accountable. And the exploitation in the aftermath is taking place. In fact, the stage of erasure is now taking place. So we have to ask ourselves in this context, what is it in the 21st century we could and should be doing about this? And I'm glad to know that I will be followed by someone speaking about the Uyghur situation, because that's another similar situation. And I want to just say and finish by saying, we need to be attentive to the fact that the primary responsible is governmental, that genocides on the whole are conducted by state authorities, not exclusively, not only, but principally. And the principal responsibility in our global system resides with states. And we have had to wait until last November when the smallest of African states, Gambia, had the gumption to bring a case under the genocide convention, only the third ever at the International Court of Justice on the Rohingya case. And still today, they stand alone in doing so. That is appalling. And so appalling that they're alone and tribute to them for bringing it. And so I would just say that this is in the 21st century really a call to all of us. What is the condition of our world where a peaceful people like the Rohingya who are not connected to an armed conflict in their last 30, 40 years are subjected to a slow burning genocide that essentially succeeds and on the whole we stand and watch in full knowledge. That's the challenge. And that's what we have to address today. Thank you. Thank you for Professor Packer. So, and our third panelist who will deliver her introduction remarks is Lil Hoxha. Ms. Hoxha is a weaker journalist, reporter, and TV anchor with over 23 years of experience. She graduated from Xinjing Normal University in Ormky, China in 1996 and began her career at Xinjing TV where she created the first ever children's TV program and posted a variety of TV programs in Chinese and she joined Radio Free Asia in 2001. Ms. Hoxha. Hello. Thank you very much. I'm very grateful to be invited to attend this important panel. You know more or less what my people, viewers are going through at the moment when it comes to talking of the genocide that the Uyghurs who are voiceless are subject. I am today the voice of those voiceless Uyghur people under Chinese rule. As we know from the Holocaust, no genocide happens overnight nor does it target a few people. It targets the whole nation, a whole people, or a whole group because of their religion, race, political reason, or something else. It's a determination to eliminate the target people is as it intends to maximize the levels of cruelty until they are totally killed or to never their life and to create their future. In this sense, the Uyghur genocide is not exceptional. We have been targeted by China since the invasion of our country in 1949. We were given two task options, either become Chinese or to die. We did not have a third option. July already expressed the intention of assimilation of so-called ethnic minorities in 1956. China just waited for right time for force us to choose one option over the other. We have proudly kept our cultural identity during all those years under the CCP. Finally, we have been categorized as an enemy under the protects of anti-terrorism as we have refused to be assimilated into being Chinese. China has been implementing this assimilation process throughout this decade. It has reached a point where it is technically able to source Uyghurs into being submissive to its unquestionable power under millions of surveillance cameras, politically able to source other nations into silence over its crimes against humanity and economically by using the one road and one built project to make them support it all costs. After all these conditions are ready, it has recently started to carry out this heinous atrocity against Uyghurs since 2017. Millions of Uyghurs are now put in the concentration camps. I am saying millions because no Uyghurs is seen on the streets. All Uyghurs, Uyghur neighborhoods have become deserted or started to be occupied by more Chinese immigrants. And this is a massive number, but it is the number of the Uyghur parishes disappeared and soul-crushed human beings. This number tells us that the whole Uyghur life is destroyed beyond the reparation. Our existence is in greatest parallel. We have never met such an existential calamity in our history. In the source of this genocide, we have seen that so many Western corporations have assessed China's provision of high technologies. Almost all famous brands that are part of our life, such as Nike, Volkswagen, H&M, Zara, have all used Uyghurs as slave labor force. None of them admitted their ethically unacceptable behavior until they were caught red-handed. The Uyghur genocide has revealed not only dark sides of CCP, but of global corporations that seek only money at the expense of human dignity, lives, and aspirations. Some days ago, 39 countries condemned China's worst human rights violations of Uyghurs at the UN. Some others still are supporting China. This bit mounting evidence that tells them that there is an unprecedented genocide ongoing in 21st century, while it is not enough only to condemn China, which has not cared too much about international condemnation so far. We still are great to these countries. However, the time is running out for Uyghurs. China is the speed of eliminating Uyghurs, which is confirmed by recent research conducted by ASPI. ASPI has identified more camps being built or being expanded. This shocked Uyghurs and many scholars, and they said, this shows us that China is defined to carry out this genocide until no Uyghur is left alive on earth. Our existence is in dire situation. If no immediate and effective action is taken against China to stop this genocide, we may perish. Last year, at the Ministry of Advanced Religious Freedom in Washington in July, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the Interment Camps in the Uyghur region, one of the worst human rights crisis of our time, and truly the stain of the century. And this will be the darkest stain on the constants of humanity, because nobody cannot say that they don't know that we were genocide. So that is why we call from the US to become on freedom and hope to stop China designating from this inhumane policies and the practice in East Turkestan, which we were called Xinjiang East Turkestan immediately. For the more we call open the free world to speak out against China's aggressive and inhuman behavior, some people may say that is the action we'll be taking to free us from the death threats of China. No, never. It will be also taken for your own peace in the long run. At the same time, it will be taken for the sake of whole humanity, for the future of humanity is already at risk here under the menacing threat of the CCP, which is determined to rule the whole world by imposing the China model, open all countries on the earth in replacement of the Western model at all costs. It is the same model that is committing crimes against humanity. We call off to fight against this evil means together. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I want to give the three of you the opportunity to ask any questions to each other if you have any after those introductory remarks. If not, I can also ask a question. Sure. I'll ask a question. So I think that it's impossible to speak about the 21st century and then also without talking about the present climate that we're all living through, which is the pandemic and how you think that is impacting human rights abuses and mass atrocities. Professor Packer, the Rohingya, Ms. Hoja with the Uyghurs and how that is affecting what is going on right now. I'll happily just jump in and just say that I think it's very clear COVID has done a few things. I mean, it's revealed a number of things. One is, I think anybody who used to make the argument that, you know, things don't concern me, though they're happening on the other side of the world, we're not connected and so forth. I think that argument is out the window. We clearly live in a complex, interdependent world and we are closely intertwined in the fates of those on the other side of the world affect us and vice versa. So that's one point. The second is I think COVID-19 has also drawn back the curtains on so many things. We pretty much knew where the case. Tremendous inequalities, relative vulnerabilities, you know, the whole amazing, the things we used to hear from the 1% movement and so forth and somehow we didn't fully digest. And so now we see what kind of risks and so forth exist. The third thing is that this has created a lot of space because it's generated a lot of fear, the vulnerability and, you know, psychologists and social psychologists and psychoanalysts and others will tell you that fear is the dominant human centimeter trait. And so this has allowed many governments and other actors to use the opportunity to, for example, bring in mass surveillance systems. Basically, a lot of the steps that are associated with at least control and I'm not saying that some elements of public engagement and even fairly strong measures are not merited but the risk of them being used for nefarious purposes and the way in which we see in many places they're just so easily being implemented and clearly not related to COVID-19 but to other ends must be tremendously disconcerting. So for example, with regard to the Rohingya, you know, the controls on communications which were already in place before COVID-19 took place but have been accentuated, the controls on movement, so the ability of international civil society to actually access and monitor that's been constrained and so forth. So I have to say that the risks have enlarged. At the same time, the last thing I'll say is I remain an optimist because I think this exposure in many respects has really drives us to an inescapable conclusion that we must absolutely be vigilant and cooperate with each other and that it really does matter the risks to others and that the only solution that is for us to act together and I think that there is a sense of that. I take some optimistic enthusiasm from or optimism from the COVAX initiative and others. I know it's problematical and so forth but I think in this regard if we could become serious about these things we know then we actually do know how to address them and in that connection I will say that it's not like we have no idea what to do about genocide and its prevention. We actually know a lot of what to do. We just haven't been doing it with much determination and so I'd like to end there and say we know how, we just have to do it and I hope that COVID-19 has really shone a light to say among other things this is what we need to do. Thank you very much. Thank you Professor Packer. So we have a question from the audience. Do you think that the United States as a world superpower has a moral obligation to intervene abroad to stop genocide even at the cost of our own national interests? I'll take that one on. Everyone who is a signatory to the genocide convention which the United States signed late but better late than never commits itself to as a state preventing and punishing the crime of genocide and one would argue there that those states with the greatest capacity and which is not simply a function of global power for example geographical contiguity might mean that a particular state has the greater obligation to intervene as Australia did in East Timor for example although only a middle power at best. The challenge with the United States and with other great powers has always been to try to distinguish humanitarian intervention from imperial intervention and also to wrestle with the fact that most successful international interventions have typically had a dimension of national interest to them. Think of India in Bangladesh in 1971 for example NATO in Kosovo or the Balkans more generally. I think we need to emphasize multilateral forms and institutions with a particular emphasis on regional bodies. This is something that I think has emerged in the last two or three decades particularly with the African Union and so on the notion that the neighboring states of a genocidal or potentially genocidal outbreak are physically best positioned and in terms of their own self-interest probably most directly concerned and have the best chance of intervening in a way that does not necessarily draw accusations of imperialism. So that is to be emphasized and Ms. Hoxha was referring to the Uighur case and the United States expressed policy on that front and this is an interesting example of a paradox of a representative of a government that has otherwise been known for profound xenophobia and racist dog whistling at every turn but with regard to China and to the Uighur case because China is the preferred whipping boy of the Trump administration at this point they feel that they can leverage the humanitarian discourse to present themselves first of all as a responsible humanitarian actor and secondly to pile further pressure on China which they are always looking to do. I'm not rejecting what Pompeo says indeed I think the United States has taken the rhetorical lead on the Uighur genocide at a time when many states that you would expect to for example elsewhere in the Muslim world also for reasons of national interest have kept quiet but I would like to see less of an emphasis on the traditional great powers as agents of intervention and greater emphasis on regional associations and multilateral bodies like the UN. Ms. Newman could I just add one small point please do. So first of all I agree entirely with what Dr. Jones just said and but I think I would like to take a little exception with the premise of the question because the last part of the question said you know without having an interest that's an analytical mistake so first of all the whole concept of for example a peremptory norm which genocide is that it is against all interests basically and is prohibited on all circumstances is that it offends a public interest a shared interest and in formally in law in the genocide convention states which are a party to that convention are bound not only with regard to their own behavior within their own jurisdiction but inter parties between other parties so they're supposed to cooperate this is a duty the UN Charter obliges in its own you know article first and second articles duties of cooperation so they're both one has to understand it's not against the interest of a state to uphold international on specifically the prohibition of genocide it is in their interest to do so now I know that that's not what the questioner meant they meant the kind of narrow interest of direct effect and so forth but it's very important to understand this broader concept in a complex independent world and it takes the shape not only of the legal obligations not just interests but obligations but in addition for example we must mention the responsibility to protect which is a residual duty of all member states of the united nations when a state is unable or unwilling to fulfill its responsibility for example on genocide then it behooves the the residually the remainder of the international community to to step forward and not least on those states which are bound by conventions like the genocide convention thank you both for those answers we have another question from the audience so this is a little bit longer but bear with me it's a great question there seems to be a phenomenon phenomenon happening in the US where the violence against the Uighurs is being labeled as anti-china propaganda and thus dismissed by a seemingly unexpected group of people groups on the left to identify with the more communist political ideology how can our academic institutions challenge attempts to delegitimate the Uighurs efforts to name and address China's state-sponsored violence maybe miss fosha i don't know if we should hear maybe miss hoya first if she has any comment on that i cannot give your uh suggestion of course but i can talk about how we been affected and how we work on that so as a journalist um i joined uh rfa from 2001 uh rfa is the only outlet we are the only outlet for this about 20 million Uighur people in uh outlet uh outside uh the china that has uh Uighur language um um it's a team of only 14 to 15 journals has broken hundreds of stories sometimes a bearing soul witness to uh china's alarming and the escalating crackdown on the Uighurs and other muslim minorities group in the country we've been at the forefront of the coverage of the among many other stories rfa Uighur service have lead the world in its early exclusive reports of the mass detention and uh creation of the high textual and state in the Uighur region the reports have paid a very heavy price uh our families and loved ones were targeted as well as their sources putting uh external pressure on them as they continue to cover this crisis but we don't have other choices so i think we've done all use our ability right now so i i have to ask others what's your part to do um so i can just say that much if you're interested um what we find out and about this um intermittent camps what is behind well i would love to uh talk about those points thank you so much thank you and i maybe uh just mentioned there that with regard to the specific question about leftist politics on this issue i think there is certainly uh small groups both in canada and the united states typically communist party adherents who um are kind of stuck without any other meaningful communist state in the world that they can support uh and so have taken this line of excusing chinese uh policies towards the Uighurs but i think it's important to note that that is not a broad leftist phenomenon and if we think back a few years for example to the free tebet movement which was quite powerful in the united states uh and canada that was a predominantly left-wing initiative as well not a right-wing one uh and i think that there has always been on the left um a commitment to the rights of national minorities that has been fairly broadly uh respected so i think um don't forget uh this um crisis uh it's happening in the one of the most restricted media environments where it is very hard to get news out of this especially true now so uh it has been very difficult covering the situation facing the Uighurs yeah yeah for sure thank you sorry and since 2017 um the situation intensified uh before there was a surveillance state before we were sort of being put in detention camp by the hundreds and thousands and millions although we have an uh advantage we are because we are Uighurs we know the language uh the cruelty we can understand and see what's happening from our sources and you know we can put together all those pictures because of chinese propaganda maybe it's difficult uh for other audience so if you pay attention there's nothing left you know to know to about what's happening over there is close to genocide actually right so we have been seeing cases of individuals sharing their options and they're raising issue publicly but we still need more voice still work need to work together um so what we covered what we know about uh based on our coverage um so there is a you know Uighurs detailing the described and testified already where former detains have reported being subject to the torture rape sterilization forced separation with children a family inductor nation starvation taking places in those camp so mentally and physically abuses so i want to ask professors all those um what we covered what we discovered is that already meet the genocide action please clear clarify why is that that's a question uh i have a very simple answer uh which is uh i invite everyone simply to read the genocide convention and then just look at uh the information uh not just presented by you but the facts as they appear to emerge and at a minimum prima facie there are numerous violations of the genocide convention uh and i want to emphasize what dr john said you know the duty under the genocide convention is not just uh to not commit it uh or to punish those who might do it but the duty is above all to prevent it there's a positive obligation and so it's very clear even if not all of the elements of the news are coming out are entirely accurate or entirely at the feet of the state responsibility uh well i would say the state is responsible in so far as it's supposed to prevent to take appropriate actions uh to address those even private actors or those local authorities who may be implicated and they should be cooperating and i want to go back to this point of cooperation because i saw on the question someone said yeah but we don't want necessarily states to kind of unilaterally like america intervene i'm not suggesting that i'm suggesting that duty is a duty of cooperation and states should be actively for example accepting uh open uh information access one of the problems in both china and miamar with regard to the uh Uyghurs and the Rohingya respectively is the state is purposefully foreclosing the possibility of access of independent persons to survey of communications and so forth i mean at a very minimum that that that implies a negative inference about their i would say good faith but but certainly presumptions about obligations so to my mind it's fairly straightforward uh that uh if you just read the genocide convention and and i think that's the important thing to do in the case of both miamar and china they are state parties so that was their own volition to become state parties and that's a standard they have presented and they should cooperate fully my my simple answer is yes it appears prima facie to be genocide i would uh second those observations i would maybe also expand our discussion of the concept of genocide a little beyond the genocide convention because i think one of the things that has emerged from accounts of the Uyghur genocide persecutions crimes against humanity these are not mutually exclusive terms um is that it is a kind of multifaceted assault upon elements of Uyghur society culture religion family life education and on and on it does intersect well with certain key elements and strategies that are codified in the genocide convention it fits even more clearly with the original articulation of genocide by rafael lemkin in 1944 who defined it as a coordinated series of actions designed to undermine health dignity uh you know uh language culture etc that sort of moves us into a little bit of the debate over this concept of cultural genocide as well which is not a legal term but is nonetheless regularly deployed in the case of peoples in particular whether the Uyghurs or in north america last point and maybe following on uh john's comments earlier about um grounds for optimism it's quite clear as you said uh miss hoya that the that these events and atrocities are occurring in a context of an extremely tightly managed information system and media system both in the case of sin jang and miyanmar much of the visual evidence that we have for what is going on comes from a newly broadly accessible form of information technology which is satellite remote sensing um a technology that has been considerably democratized over the last 20 or 30 years so if you think of the rohingya situation for me anyway the first thing that comes to mind is the pictures of the villages where you have uh the untouched rakhine side of the population at a completely devastated and annihilated side of the village where rohingya used to live and that says a lot it stands up in courts uh to the extent that it is used in prosecution and so at the same time as certain doors are being closed through manipulations of information technology so there are other avenues becoming available broadly i would say and social media of course is another example of that thank you so much so we are going to now move to breakout rooms because we have a lot of questions coming in i want to give the most opportunity for people to ask them to you so we just posted in the side chat panel the three breakout room options you can go to we're going to leave this zoom room open for like five ten minutes to allow people to figure out where they want to go and then make that switch but i would really like to thank each of you for sharing your expertise um personal experiences and your insights on this panel it means so much to everyone at the colloquium to have such esteemed people you know coming and talking with us it's definitely a major mark of my college experience and so thank you so much thanks so um yeah people can start moving to do zoom breakout rooms that have been uh marked on the panels if you see them and feel free to chat me if you have any questions or technology technological difficulties so we leave this room now