 Next, we'll have a few words from Dr. Kiernan. It's a great pleasure to be here. Thank you for the invitation. I was reading yesterday in an excellent book called France on the Mekong, which is about the colonial history of Cambodia, which stops in 1954 when the French left Cambodia. By that time, a man named Nuan Chia had joined the communist movement in Cambodia, and he only features very shortly, briefly, in this book. But in a footnote towards the end of this excellent book, which was written in 2002, the author writes, at the time of writing, Nuan Chia, now 76 years old, still lives in the former Khmer Rouge stronghold of Pai Lin in Western Cambodia. It seems unlikely that he will ever face trial for his part in the brutality of democratic Khmer Rouge regime. At that time, it wasn't clear that there would ever be a tribunal set up to bring to justice the leaders of the Pol Pot regime. Nuan Chia was, in fact, the deputy party secretary of the Communist Party of Khmer Rouge and the deputy to Pol Pot who had died four years before in 1998. And it seemed quite clear at the time to this author, John Tully, in this excellent book, that it was unlikely that Nuan Chia, or any of the other Khmer Rouge leaders who had been defeated, but were still living freely, would ever be brought to trial. But indeed, Nuan Chia was brought to trial. He had surrendered, and he was under the control of the Cambodian government. And the United Nations had begun a program of negotiations with the Cambodian government to set up a tribunal which was eventually established in 2006, just four years after this book was written. And in around 2009, Nuan Chia was arrested. And he spent the next 10 years in jail. He was charged and tried for crimes against humanity, for which he was found guilty in 2014. He appealed, and the appeal was denied in 2016. So he remained in jail. He was then tried for genocide. And in 2018, he was found guilty of two counts of genocide against the Cambodian Muslim minority, the Charm people, and also against the ethnic Vietnamese minority in Cambodia. His colleague in the Cambodian regime of Pol Pot, Hughes and Poem, was also arrested about the same time and was also found guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide. And he remains in jail, having been convicted and sent as to life like Nuan Chia for crimes against humanity. And his appeal against his genocide conviction is continuing. Nuan Chia died this August, and his appeal was never held, never completed. But my point in this story is to show that the institutions that have been established around the world for the prevention, but particularly in this case for the punishment of genocide, have outlasted those two individuals, and that they did come to fruition in this case. This was very late justice. The Khmer Rouge genocide ended in 1979, so it was 40 years before Nuan Chia and Hughes and Poem were convicted of genocide. And it was 30 years before they were arrested. But the slow justice is better than no justice, although it's also true that justice delay is justice tonight. It took a number of years before the case for genocide was developed and brought through the United Nations and before the United Nations. Only in 1999 after Pol Potstead did it get the attention of the United Nations General Assembly, not the Security Council, because as you probably know, China said after the Rwanda genocide, tribunal was established, and the Bosnia Tribunal was established that it would never vote again for such an ad hoc tribunal through the Security Council. So it had to be the General Assembly, which negotiated the Secretary-General's representative, negotiated with the Cambodia government, certain compromises were made. Only the most senior leaders were going to be tried along with certain other people, most responsible, including Duke the Commandant of the S21 prison, where possibly 16,000 people were murdered in Phnom Penh during the Khmer Rouge regime. And so those three people have been tried and convicted. Yang Tsui, Pol Potts brother-in-law, and deputy prime minister, was also prosecuted and tried for crimes against humanity. But he died during the trial. He was also scheduled to be tried for genocide. But he died in jail during the trial. His wife, who was also a minister in the Pol Pot cabinet, was arrested too, charged. But then she was now mentally unfit to face trial that she was released. The leader of the Pol Pot regime's army, Mock, he was arrested and was set to face prosecution but he died in jail. So my point really is that some justice has been achieved in Cambodia. A number of killers have got away, but a number of others have served time in re-education camps. The main people who got away were Pol Pot who died in sleep in 1998. And another commander, Kate Polk, who seems to have been pardoned by the Cambodia government for leaving a revolt against Pol Pot much later. But apart from those two big fish, most of the other big fish have been prosecuted and at least served time in jail, even if they weren't convicted because of death during their trials. The institutions that were established in 1948 with the genocide convention have led to the wheels of justice moving around the world. The first case of a genocide conviction was in 1994, in the case of Rwanda. And we're in the United Nations with the support of the United States in 1996, 97. I got going on the Cambodian case and joined by the Cambodian government with some severe compromises made. But these institutions and structures that were established to eventually produce the souls, no matter what new and cheered and cues and thought, or no matter what scholars thought might happen. And it's important to recognize that the people who worked on those institutions have been rewarded. And I think if you look at the case of the Rohingya, where I've seen has been so active over the years, where things look rather hopeless at times for the future of Rohingya people and bringing their perpetrators of crimes to justice, that there are structures and institutions around the world which can be implemented to stop the masculine and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Just a couple of words about the field of genocide studies and what is relatively and relatively a new field. Of course, the most serious and most horrifying event in world history is quite possibly the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. And some of the things contributed to our knowledge of genocide have been the scholars who have worked on the Holocaust in detail, the terrifying crimes that were committed by the Nazis against the Jews. But it's not the only case of mass murder against the ethnic group. The person who coined the term genocide, Raphael Lincoln, was already before the Holocaust in the 1930s working on the international recognition he hoped for, the Armenian genocide in World War I. And it's the work that was done by Raphael Lincoln and others since 1945 to make comparisons and to see the similarities between the Holocaust and other genocides that have proliferated despite the genocide convention coming into force in 1950. This has been the achievement of the field of genocide studies to show the importance of the Holocaust as the most extremely unique genocide, but it's still to show the crimes that are genocide that have been committed against other victims. And this is an extremely important development, I think, to show that there are similarities as well as differences between the Holocaust and other genocides. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, it came out to the notice of the prosecutors of the Japanese imperialists in World War II that on the island of Borneo, in the former British colony of North Borneo, a revolt had taken place against Japanese rule in the town of Chesilton, which is now Kotokinobalu in Malaysia. And the ethnic Chinese had revolted there and killed 40 Japanese soldiers. And the Japanese had repressed that revolt and tried to kill, as a result, all of the ethnic Chinese in the town, of which they proceeded to do during World War II. And then they found out a bit later that an ethnic group of people related to the Malays, the Suluk people, living on islands just offshore had helped the ethnic Chinese. And so what they did was they went out to the islands and tried to kill everybody of the Suluk ethnic group, which they succeeded in doing. Only a few survivors of that entire ethnic group of the Suluk people managed to escape. And this was investigated by British lawyers for the Tokyo Tribunal after the war. And one lawyer wrote at the time, I'm not sure if it was before 1948 when the genocide convention was adopted or slightly afterwards, a suspected moment before, because what he wrote was that this massacre of the near entire population of the Suluk people cannot be considered genocide, he said. Because the Japanese did this against a number of other people as well. In other words, it was indiscriminate genocide. It was not singling out the Suluks because they did it to the Chinese in Jaisalton just before that. And they did it to some islands in the Indian Ocean, the Anduin Islands. In other words, there was not a singling out of the Suluk people. In other words, the idea that this British lawyer had was that it was impossible to commit more than one genocide. And I think we need to deal with that. We need to confront that possibility that a genocide perpetrator may have in mind destruction of more than one ethnic group, which has certainly been found in the case of Cambodia under Pol Pot. And a genocide perpetrator may not stop at one genocide or a destruction of one ethnic group. And the structure of the genocidal mind and the nature of the planning of a genocide may lead to multiple genocides, which is a possibility we need to bear in mind. And I don't think it's at all recluded by the genocide invention and its language. These are just some thoughts for consideration. Thank you very much. Commence was panel one and Dr. Dunsini is the moderator for the panel, so just give us a moment to organize ourselves. But then, as I mentioned, until 1998, for the genocide to be convicted in an international trial for a crime committed in Rwanda in 1994, but it's nevertheless widely acknowledged that the Nazi regime had committed genocide against Jews during World War II. Even though that crime itself had no legal status at the time. And the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg were initially charged with genocide, even though there was no such crime at the time. But they were convicted. Genocide is often considered a 20th century crime rather than a post-war legalism. And Polish jurists made a similar crime. So genocide before 1939 or even before 1900 was not at all unthinkable, but rather was expressed using different terminology. It was conducted in different ways, depending on different historical mental circumstances, as well as under earlier limitations. It's definitions of genocide, both legalizations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide defines that crime. Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or impart a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. And the acts are killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Deliberately inflicting under group conditions of life calculated to bring about this physical destruction in whole or impart. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. And finally forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. I'd like to make three points here. First, note that the legal definition of genocide requires acts. Omissions or refusals to act cannot be considered genocide. Thus for instance, withholding food aid from a starving population in a neighboring country would not in itself be genocide. But perhaps cutting off, deliberately ending an existing aid program might be judged and act rather than omission. Second, the legal definition focuses not on the outcome, but on the intent of the act or acts. Genocide is not the same as extinction, which can take place without genocide. So genocide is very difficult to prove. Third, the law does not focus on the motive of the perpetrator. It requires only an intent to destroy an intent to destroy a group as such. And it does not inquire into the perpetrator's reason for that intent. The perpetrator may have various motives, economic, territorial, ideological, racialist, but they're not relevant to guilt for genocide. The perpetrator must commit the acts with intent to destroy in whole or in part the national, ethical, racial, or religious group as such. Yet it is this part of the definition that is too narrow for many scholars of genocide, particularly sociological theorists who would wish the law to include and thus protect political groups and possibly even wider, less distinct groups such as socio-economic classes as potential victims of genocide. Many sociologists consider race to be a social construction and racial groups to be just as much socially constructed as social classes or other social groups. But the legal definition of genocide protects only national, ethical, racial, or religious groups. A broad range of group-selected cases of mass killing falls under another legal definition, which I believe is not given enough emphasis in the fight to prevent or punish genocide. This is the one included in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as the crime of extermination. A separate crime, an older and separate legal term coming under the category of crimes against humanity. This one largely overlaps with most sociological definitions of genocide. Extermination is legally described as conduct, that quote, constituted or took place as part of a mass killing of members of a civilian population and was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Extermination is a crime against humanity, which includes not only massacres but like genocide, also covers, quote, the intentional infliction of conditions of life into earlier the deprivation of access to food and medicine calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the population. The UN Sponsored Truth Commission for East Timor, which was largely funded by the Japanese government, by the way, found in 19, in 2005, that Indonesian forces in East Timor had perpetrated, quote, extermination as a crime against humanity, unquote, in the period 1975 to 1999. Like genocide under the UN convention, in the case of a crime against humanity, the intentionality of the crime is important. Though again, the purpose or motive of the extermination is not relevant to guilt, but unlike genocide, to make the definition of extermination the targeted population or part of it need not be an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. And thus, this crime of extermination may cover political and social groups, like most sociological definitions of genocide. Nor do charges for crimes against humanity, such as extermination, require proof, as the UN definition of genocide does, of what legal scholars call specific intent, that is, the intent to destroy a group in whole or impart as such. Such a high level of intent is not required for the crime of extermination. Though it too is a crime committed intentionally, not accidentally, or without foreknowledge. That level of intentionality is still required as is made clear by the deployment in the legal definition of extermination of the terms widespread or systematic, intentional and calculated. So it's an intentional crime, but it doesn't require proof of specific intent, that is, the intent to destroy a group as such, as genocide does. Extermination thus clearly covers most of those cases of genocide that are advanced by genocide scholars, but not covered by the UN Genocide Convention, for instance, the case of East Timor, where up to 150,000 people died or were killed by the Indonesian military occupation and repression. While other crimes against humanity, for instance, murder, which is a crime against humanity, or apartheid is another, those crimes may be committed against individuals, as well as groups. The crime of extermination emphasizes crimes against groups, collectivities, or communities. The legal definitions of genocide and extermination thus overlap with the definitions of sociologists, such as Helen Fine, one of the leading sociologists of genocide. She writes, genocide is sustained, purposeful action by a perpetrator to physically destroy a collectivity directly or indirectly, and indirectly, as what she means, through interdiction of the biological and social reproduction of group members, sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat offered by the victim. So that's Helen Fine's definition of genocide. It doesn't refer to any specific type of group, ethnic or political, it could be any group. A different definition, no, again, not a legal one, is that of Frank Chalk, who's a historian, and then Kurt Johnson, who's a sociologist. They write, genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group. As that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator. So here we have the possibility that the perpetrator can define the group, commit genocide against it, and again, it may not be any specific type of group except it has defined by the perpetrator. So that's the major difference between Chalk and Johnson and Fine, is that they include cases where the perpetrator defines the group's existence and proceeds to destroy people who the perpetrator claims belongs to this group, irrespective of what the victims feel about belonging to this group or not. Even if the victims are unaware of their ascribed membership in the group. Helen Fine disagrees with the inclusion of such imaginary groups as she calls them as genocide victims, although those victims would surely qualify at least as victims of the crime against humanity of extermination. My major point here is that many of the borderline cases which have caused so much disputation among genocide scholars is whether a case is genocide or not, people arguing about whether to cause a certain case genocide. Many of these borderline cases could be resolved by giving as much attention to occurrences of the crime of extermination as to that of genocide. This is particularly true of Cambodia, even though it is also true, in my view, that cases of genocide have also been overlooked in Cambodia, that I would say that the case for extermination having taken place in Cambodia has also been understudied. Now, how much time have I got because I would like to take a second? Exactly as much time as you need. So the Khmer Rouge regime that ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 79 committed not only several cases of genocide, but it also perpetrated the extermination of political and social groups and even in thousands of people that it classified into what were in fact imaginary groups as would be defined by Chauhan Johnson, that is groups that never believed they were constituted as groups. And I'm going to attempt to show you exactly how the Khmer Rouge regime did this by these parts of my talk. First, I'll look at the leadership of the Democratic Camperature regime, the Volcott regime that ruled Cambodia from 75 to 79. And then we'll look at their ideology and then who the victims were. And then I will try to explain exactly how these victims were targeted. I'll be using the recently released judgment that was released in March of the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia. They convicted Nurengir and Kusupon of genocide last November but they didn't release their full judgment which runs to 2,259 pages until I think March 28th this year. When the Khmer Rouge took power, they forcibly emptied all of Cambodia's cities along with his hospitals and Buddhist monasteries. They shut down the schools, newspapers, coastal services, most of its factories. They dynamited, here is Cambodia in the map of Southeast Asia. I'm sure you don't need that. Here is the ecological map of Cambodia. It's just a bit of historical background. I don't need to explain that to all of you here. They dynamited the National Bank, the Khmer Rouge when they took over. I took that picture in 1980. Five years later it still hadn't been repeated. These are all the sites where massacres took place. Mass graves left behind by the Khmer Rouge. This is all by himself. So abolished money and then January 19th, so the sixth day proclaimed the new state of democratic camp Chir or DK which became a vast agricultural labour camp because they expelled everybody from the cities to work without pay in the countryside. Family life came under rigid controls and soon Cambodians had to take their meals in collective mess halls. A 12 year old peasant boy whom I interviewed on the tight border in 1979 who'd been separated from his parents by the Khmer Rouge told me that the Khmer Rouge were killing people every day. You can imagine how he learned that at the age of eight. However, most of the killings that could have been secret like the administration of the entire country. This is Pol Pot, the country's new leader. He never admitted that his real name was so-so. When he was a student in Paris in 1952 he chose a different name, the original Khmer Khmer Da. Which emphasised the historic origin of the Khmer people going right back to the past, what I call the cult of antiquity. Fellow Cambodian leftist students in Paris in the early 1950s had preferred less racial, more modernist cognames like Free Khmer, or Khmer worker, but he wanted to be the original Khmer. And this prefigured his prejudice against other peasant groups. His French scholarship ended after he failed his radio-electricity course two years in a row and he returned back to Cambodia in 1953. During the 1960s he and other French educated Cambodians with the exception of Nguyen Chia who was educated in Thailand at the law school in Thameshaw University in Bangkok. All of Nguyen Chia, Nguyen Chia, Yeng Sery, Kingston-Bombs, Sunset, all educated in France or Thailand took over the Communist Party that fought the French for independence in the early 1950s. They took it over in the 1960s and took it in a much more radical direction. And they set out on their path to power by staging an uprising in 1967 against Syeduck's neutral monarchy. When General Longnoll overthrew Syeduck in March 1970, Prince Syeduck took up exile in 18 and he backed the people who had previously tried to overthrow him, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. In 1975 they defeated Longnoll's US-backed Khmer Republic and proclaimed their own state of democratic Cambodia in 1976. Now Pol Pot was the head of the ruling body which was the standing committee of the Central Committee, standing committee of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cambodia. But in actual practice, the leaders with the maximum national power and responsibility for the mass murders and genocide perpetrated in 1975 to 79 were the leaders who were placed in the capital, in Phnom Penh. It was this group that made up what was called the Chimpak, the Pani Centre. They included Salat Sar, as you can see, Pol Pot, Longnoll, there's a real name who can't know this name. Yem Sari, number three, and Son Sen and others. Kiersum Korn was also based in the capital. The others, that's down there, basically that's the Pani Centre, with Pol Pot on the far left. These people ran the show from Phnom Penh. Other leaders who were more senior and older, but not educated in France, had been trained by the Vietnamese communists. They held positions running the zones of the regions outside Phnom Penh. They didn't always get to Phnom Penh for the meetings of the standing committee, of the central committee, and they were often excluded from those meetings. The real power was in the centre. There were these, some of the other members of the standing committee, and these are the zones that the Pol Pot regime divided Cambodia into. That was the Cambodian version, this is the English version. There are two very key zones, the south-west down there, and the eastern zone. The most loyal zone to the Pol Pot Pani Centre was the south-west, led by a guy I mentioned before, Moc, who became the head of the army of the country, the commander-in-chief of the army. Moc ran the south-west zone, and we'll see that's going to be very important in how the actual genocide was committed. He was the closest, he ran the zone that was closest to Phnom Penh and politically closest to the Pani Centre. And became the instrument, the south-west zone became the instrument for the genocide, for the Pani Centre's plans. In the eastern zone, the leader was Sal Penh, and the eastern zone was the furthest ideologically from the Pani Centre, although it too was close by, in geographical terms, close by, but ideologically at least as a trustee. And Sal Penh, although he was a member of the Standing Committee, was not in the Pani Centre, I've got the minutes of the first 17 meetings, and as far as I can recall, he attended like one. He was either not invited, or he was sick and having hospital treatment in China, and he was virtually not included in any of the meetings, and in the end, the Pani, to cut a long story short, the Pani Centre mobilised its own armed forces and the south-west's own armed forces and the northern's own armed forces and invaded the eastern zone and surrounded Sal Penh, the commander of the eastern zone, and when he was surrounded he committed suicide. But then they tried to slaughter the entire population of the eastern zone, which is one and a half minute, and they, in the last six months of the regime, this happened in May 1978, the last year of the regime, in the last six months, they killed approximately 250,000 ordinary Cambodians of the eastern zone. So here you get to the question of whether it's possible to kill and commit a genocide against one-time people, because these are people of the Khmer majority, 80% of the population of Cambodia are Khmer. This was called, by some people, Jean-La Couture in France, called this auto genocide, which is not a term that comes up in the international convention, a UN convention on genocide. It seems to me that it is covered because the convention says, and it's excavated with the intent to destroy the whole of Nepal, an ethnic, national, racial, religious or national group. It seems to me that killing 250,000 members of the eastern zone population is an intent to destroy part of the national group. And that seems to me that the lawyers could have made a case in the tribune in Cambodia that this was a genocide committed by the Polka regime, including Nui Chi, who was the deputy leader of the regime. But they decided, not to, they decided to go for the genocide against racial and religious groups, the ethnic minority, the ethnic minorities, and the ethnic Muslim charm minority. Although the numbers killed in those two cases were substantial in the tens of thousands, I would say 90,000 to 100,000 charms were killed, and 10 to 20,000 ethnic Vietnamese. So these are substantial. In fact, they killed all of the ethnic Vietnamese remaining in the country. And it was impossible to find myself and Michael Vickery, another Cambodian scholar. We attempted to find a single ethnic Vietnamese who had survived the Polka regime inside Cambodia. And neither he nor I, nor anybody else has ever been able to find a single survivor from the ethnic Vietnamese minority Cambodian. A lot was recorded, but all of those remained after 1976 were tracked down and killed. And this has been documented in the two and a half thousand page judgment of genocide against the ethnic Vietnamese. But it seems to me that the largest group of victims were the ethnic, sorry, the Eastern zone, Canadians, much larger in number. And that's not even taking into account the political and social groups, the defeated officer corps of the long-known army who were tracked down and killed in 1975 as soon as the regime took power. The members of the intelligentsia, doctors were killed if they were found out to be doctors. You hear lots of stories about people being killed because they wore glasses. Sometimes that wasn't true, but a lot of times it was. People who had any professional qualifications were often killed because of their education or their learning. All kinds of people in certain social groups were tracked down and killed. So here we have clear cases of extermination, crimes against humanity. And indeed, Nguyen Chieh and Gishe Pong were found guilty of extermination as a crime against humanity in 2014. And they served. Gishe Pong still serving a life sentence for the Nguyen Chieh died in jail during his life sentence. And Yen Sirri was died during his trial for that. But there seems to be a gamut of cases and a gamut of charges, not just against the minority groups but against the large population of Cambodia. The national population of Cambodia in 1975 was 8 million. And my estimate is that 1.7 million Cambodians died in less than four years, which is about 20% of the population of Cambodia. It's probably the fastest and most destructive genocide. Although in a small country of 8 million, the proportion of genocide victims is higher, even than the great leap forward in China, which technically wouldn't be a genocide, but the toll was extremely high in the tens of millions. It's higher than anything that Stalin did to just leaving the comparison with other communist regimes. But if we compare it with the Nazi extermination of the Jews, it certainly rates very, very hardly in comparison with them. And the Rwandan genocide, we're talking about a three month, massive genocide of 800,000 to a million people. This is a million and 700,000 in four years. So this is an extremely rapid and I would say deliberate mobilisation of mass killing, as well as enforced starvation, because the country was exporting rice at the time. It was taking rice grown by the people and exporting it, thereby leaving them to starve. And this is a regime that organised the destruction of a fifth of its own people. I just want to finish up in a couple of minutes. This is Mock, the military commander, who was promoted from chief of the south-west side, although he kept that command in the south-west side, but he also served as commander-in-chief of the Army of the Democratic Party. He died in 2006, just before the tribunal, but he died in shadow. The government arrested him in 1999 and he spent seven years awaiting prosecution. This is the prison to the slime where Duke, the commandant, arrested and jailed and tortured and then murdered about 16,000 people. This is what happened to them. He took this picture in 1980 of what's now called killing fields, but this is taken. As the graves were being unearthed, I was the first westerner to visit Chiang Mai as it was called then, the killing fields, where 63 mass grave pits were being unearthed. This is the map we put together of the prisons which are blue triangles and the mass graves in white circles. You can see how close they are to one another. The mass graves that have been unearthed, very close to the Khmer Rouge prison, so we know about it. Here is the anchor of white in Cambodia. The original Khmer, Polpa, wanted to outdo the glory of an anchor in Cambodian history. When he went to France as a young student to study radio electricity, he got off the ship in Marseille, but he got on the ship in Saigon and he got on the ship with another Cambodian called Mai Mai. And they came to Saigon from Cambodia and Mai Mai later told a Swiss friend of mine who was in the refugee camps on the Thai border in 1979. Mai Mai was there at Khmer Rouge official in Thailand. Mai Mai told Tony Stadler that when they got to Saigon from Cambodia in 1949, they reached the Saigon, they went to the market town, Chalur, in the Chinatown, and they saw this bustling commercial district, you know, products on sale and people buying themselves, and he said, we felt like dark monkeys from the mountains. They felt an immediate distance from this commercial world of lighter-skinned people. So they got on the ship in Saigon and they got off in Marseille and they then took the train from Marseille to Paris and they walked past this statue, which is that had been erected in the 1920s. This is in 1949, and it shows the French colonies of Asia. And you can see the Cambodian wall, the up-sur-ar on the left and on the right, a loud girl waiting on her, and on the center, a young Vietnamese boy waiting on her as well. This was French colonial ideology that Cambodia had been run by a French for 90 years, was imagined by this French colonial artist as being the real jewel in the crown of French and low China. And Cambodia was the center of it, and the Vietnamese and Lao were waiting on. And all got up, the message, not just from this statue, but we know he walked past the climbing steps to the railway station. But French colonial ideology saw Cambodia as a glorious place to be, his glory needed to be preserved. And he said about doing that, and he got a lot of it from French colonial thinking as well as from traditional Cambodian racism against the Vietnamese. This is another query poster from World War II, French fascist, fishy France, about the various things. This is my calculation of the death tolls of 1.671,000 people in the different categories. And this is the U.N. demographic expert from 2010 coming up with similar figures. The Vietnamese, I think Vietnamese and Cambodian had to carry ID cards. They were never given citizenship, very similar to the Tutsis in Rwandan. This is a document from the Pop-up regime, the monthly report, that screening out of U.N. Vietnamese, the honest CIA agents, 1,100 Vietnamese people, small and big, young and old, have been smashed, contipped, which makes destroy it. In July 1978, this is the death toll amongst Muslims that I was able to calculate in the 1980s. Just the leaders, the cultural elite of the Chiang Muslim people, what happened to them in the middle, the middle-class cause of death. These are the ones who had studied abroad, conducted a pilgrimage to America and so on. What happened to them? Now, these are the people from the Southwestern who were then sent to other zones to ground up and kill the Chans in other zones, the Muslim Chans, I think, by now. Our mind is in jail now, awaiting trial. Unfortunately, it doesn't look as if this trial will go ahead. The prosecutors have split Cambodian prosecutors against the U.N. prosecutors in favor that the Hun Sen government is holding out a trial. But this was a man from the Southwestern who went to the Northern Zone. First, he came up to the census to find out where all the Chans were, get all their names, enumerate all the Chans families, and then, having completed the census, he had them all killed. The same with this man, did something very similar. This is Mox Sonnainmore, also from the South West. And we'll take another case which is being held up at the moment. Okay, so here is the Eastern Zone on the right, the Southwest Zone on the left. And I should explain. You see, region 25 in the middle between the two, the party center took region 25 from the East, and gave it to the Southwest. At first, gave it to the Special Zone, SZ, you see there. And then, after they won the war against Von Lauch, they gave region 25 to the Southwestern when they abolished the Special Zone, the war was over. They didn't give it back to the East. They gave it to the Southwest. The center was favoring the Southwestern. They'd taken 25 from the East and then gave it to the Southwest. And here's what happened in 1977, it's up to 76, 77 and 78. Military forces and political administrators were sent from the Southwest to all those regions of the country. First, in 1976, to region 11 on the bottom left there, in 1977, to the Northwest and to the North and to the Central Zone. And then in 1978, to the West, to the East and to the North East. Lawless can be documented. Vulcan Ministry. Southwest, under Mock, was the zone of the force, military and political force that was used to take over all the other zones of the country and to conduct a census or all the minority groups and then to kill members of all the minority groups. And this is absolutely clear, not only from the genocide, judgment against new and shared and accused of law published in March this year, but also from the prosecution's closing orders. One of the prosecutors, because they're split of the cases against our own Yifted and Niermuth, those three cases are now being held up, we do have the prosecutors closing orders, being diagnosed. And this was all calculated there. I also myself interviewed 500 Cambodians in the early 80s and late 1970s who had survived the top regime, including a number of Khmer Rouge cadres who told me how this happened and what their experience was. And when the south-west zone cadres came along to this area, how the violence escalated. And this was the mechanism I wish genocide took place. Thank you very much. Thank you. Present. Okay, then we have four minutes for questions. These conferences is just a day of complete depression. You know, when I attended a conference a year, then this is all of us with the one and certain schedule. From morning to evening, all we hear was about massacres and genocide and people being chock-chock. Some of the details are really quite graphic. But let me just tell you about something that you may have heard in the news, but a lot of people don't really know too much of the details on the Rohingya, the Rohingya genocide that will happen there. I'll start off with what I'm telling you now. I actually heard the word Rohingya about a... I'm sorry, what sort of music are you talking about there? Well, just about a decade ago, before that time, I had no idea what the most persecuted minority in the world described by the United Nations, the most persecuted minority. And I found this very astonishing because there are quite a few groups that are in the world, unfortunately, who are buying for that title of being the most persecuted. So, that's this group. And when I did some research and came to the realization that there's hardly any information about these people out there, is that there was nothing but a book on them, there was a campaign, a forum, there was no celebrity in Dortmund, there's almost nothing out there. So, I spent a couple of years doing some research to these people. I also put together this policy briefing, which I distributed in the British Parliament and the European Parliament about why action should be taken to defend these people. In 2014, then, I made a trip to Bangladesh to the refugee camps in Bangladesh. And what I found there was quite surprising. This is some of the camps, this is for all the currently camps in the world. And I went to quite a few refugee camps. I'm sure there was supposed to be a point in this. It's this way, yeah. There you go. So, these are some of the pictures I took and I took testimonials of lots of different survivors. There are people like Sobeida, for example, who escaped in the 1990s. The late 90s, she'd been in this camp in Bangladesh. She escaped with her children. Her husband didn't make it because he got slashed on the thigh with a machete and died of infection on the way. I took testimonials of people like Greino who hasn't seen her children or her husband since she actually died across. Her father and her brother managed to get across. And then in 2014, later that year, the thing had to be controlled to Myanmar itself, to actually retain the region where a lot of this discrimination was happening. And at that time, it was relatively straightforward to get a night by basically going with a tourist visa. This was the Rohingya village I'd keep across. So I had some fixers in the ground to take me around. So this was a Rohingya village I'd keep across, which was completely evacuated to the Tikol residents of this village and put them into the camps. To get into the camps was a little bit quite easy. These are very large, essentially concentration camps which are controlled from the overseas so Rohingya can never get hurt. You essentially paid a $200 break to the guards to get events to the camps. And the conditions in the camps were quite horrific for any people to live in. So as you can appreciate, it's a monsoon region. It rains all the time. And this is the kind of conditions that people were living in. And you had a surplus of, you know, lots of rainwater and garbage and human sewage. So many think you're literally up to your knees in sewage so you can imagine the smell and the health conditions that are quite severe. This was my fixer, my guide who took me around. And this is a picture of the security forces controlling the camps and you should only get them in and out. And this was a sign of some mass graves. This grave, for example, was of a family of about seven or eight people who were burned alive in their homes. And the security forces put all their means in the back of the car truck and dumped them in front of the camp. So the camp residents took them in and buried them in this mass grave. So how did this all come to pass? How did Rohingya welcome the most fair-safety minority in the world? So we have a country that you can see here not too far from Cambodia which we've just heard of, Thailand and Laos, Southeast Asia. About 50 million people. The majority of the population of Vermont is about 80%. The other largest, next largest minority are the Muslims which constitute about 5%. Then they made up of Christians and Hindus and Sikhs and other kind of minorities. The majority of Rohingya population is saturated in this region and in the other kind of region, the capital of situate. So the main accusation that has made against Rohingya is this right here. This term Rohingya is a manufactured term that these people are all essentially a legal emigrant cable from Bangladesh and they made up this work of Rohingya to give them identity, to give themselves a label which attaches them to the land, this land known as Rohan in the past. And this is the main accusation and some Buddhist elements actually go much further. They actually go by date on it. Some of them will say, well this term Rohingya was manufactured in 1952 in March 1952 and for that time this term didn't exist. So they all came over from Bangladesh in 1952 to make up this term and they basically gave themselves an identity. They're all legal emigrants from Bangladesh and they should all just go back to Bangladesh. So one of the things I tried to do in my book is to try to ascertain the veracity of these claims and I developed documents on the Indian National Archive in the U.D. and then as well as other documents which you can see here some of the dates going back to 1811 and you can see the terms used there quite clearly, Rohingya. And this is a document from the British colonial office at some settlement called Charles Patton in 1826. One thing that the British were extremely efficient at you know, you realize why in some point in which they knew almost half the world's population and that they were extremely efficient at the research and categorizing people. You know, so before the armies actually met in before the British would actually colonize a region they would send the silk servants to the colonial office so they studied the power structures, who studied the languages, who studied the tribes, et cetera. They were very clear about these are places that are not mapped at all on terms of how the society in this region operates and then before they would actually go in and then colonize this region. Even Charles Patton report mentions the Rohingya, how one in three souls in this region and those of us that are Rohingya origin. So how did this all actually come about? Well that we need to take a step back in the street. We need to take a step back to the Second World War where the Japanese invaded what was at that time British for a month, who was a British colony. The majority of this population sided with the Japanese invaders believing that the Japanese are going to be victorious and this is going to lead to swifter independence from the British crew, new masters. Whereas the minority Rohingya population stayed loyal to the British at that time. So in the country that had become independent in 1948 there was bad blood between the two people. The Rohingya were seen as having not supported the Buddhists during their struggle against the yoke of colonialism and then they were seen as the first colonists who were simply not loyal to the British to the Burmese majority. But despite that there was really a time up until 1962 when there was a military coup with the army chief General Nehwin. General Nehwin took power and he tried to implement what he called the Burmese road to socialism which was a communist managed expo and it was a complete economic disaster. So he did what a lot of military dictators do in that situation where things start to go wrong is that they start to look for skate quotes. Skate quotes on who to bring all the ills of society on and the Rohingya minority who were already looked at with suspicion, who were already seen as first colonists who had a different language, a different skin color, different features, different religion, he was a perfect minority for sub-scape voting. General Nehwin also became much more openly Buddhists in his help. He started reading the Buddhist religious car. He started making statements such as, only Buddhists can be loyal citizens of this country and anybody who is non-Buddhist could never possibly be loyal to Myanmar, to Burma and that thing. So he passed a number of laws which eventually culminated in the 1982 Citizenship Act which stripped the majority of the Rohingya of the nationality, making them some of the largest stateless people around the globe. In 1988, there was an uprising against the regime and General Nehwin was forced into office. But despite having been forced into office, the regime still stayed intact. The military junta still maintained power and the military junta then became much more ethnocentric and much more openly extreme Buddhist in their outlook in terms of trying to define a Buddhist identity, extreme Buddhist identity. And this led to a number of massacres which culminated in the 2012-2013 massacre when the Rohingya movement was raided. Then a number of Rohingya stocked a bus of Rohingya and murdered the people of Rohingya on the bus. And this was exacerbated by individuals such as Reshwara Kamantya Shorthy, Ashin, who described himself as the Buddhist, Ben Laden. Very strange, very strange character in terms of his outlook, not the traditional kind of Buddhist that we would normally think of. And this individual here, Dr. E. Wong, who's currently in prison, not for inspecting genocide against Rohingya, but for insulting Ancet Suu Kyi, which is a bigger claim, according to many Burmese. But his name was the most common name that came up when I went to the council, who was instigating the violence. Dr. E. Wong was one of the most names that came up, most often. He and his gang of followers, essentially a leader, one of the political parties in the country, where it went under restaurants and public bases to ensure that Rohingya were ever intermingling with the locals. So whenever there was a Rohingya sitting with a kind of Buddhist in the estuarine for an atomic setting, they would send this mobster to essentially keep them up and hack them. So I wrote this piece in the public post at that time, who's instigating the majority of the violence against Rohingya. So the aftermath of this massacre in 2013 was a huge exodus of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya into Bangladesh, into these oversize, into these over-current camps. This was the only means of escape as by land into these camps, or by these kind of rarity boats into other regions where they usually vest them, so into the slave trade in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, other countries, particularly into the Tron, the ship's slave trade on ships. So one of the key questions I get asked most often is that if I am arguing that this is being going on since the Second World War, this kind of discrimination, this kind of persecution, why did it happen on such a scale in 2017? Why did it really explode onto the world scene in 2017? The answer to that is that when you study genocides, it is quite common for the perpetrator of a genocyte for the organizers, the architects of the genocyte to undertake a dry-down, to undertake a test run to see what is going to be the reaction of the international community, what is going to be the reaction of local actors. Are we able to get away with this? Are we able to take this to the next level? Are we able to execute the final solution and essentially wipe out these depots? The village trade in Myanmar decided to undertake a dry-down in 2016 when the military group called Marsha, the Arakhan group, just salvation, and we undertook an attack on a few security outposts, which left about a dozen security officials dead. In response, the military invaded a number of villages, and this was all documented by human rights watch to these satellite images. This was the village of Myanmar, for example. This was a picture before, and this was an actor. This was another local village. This was a before, and this was an actor. The military group essentially completely destroyed their point to the ground, and over 150,000 local men spelt into Bangladesh, and approximately 15,000 were murdered. These are just some of the images of actor. But this happened, it was quite interesting, because same individual actually were actor. You made the statement with after Donald Trump was elected, that Donald Trump was very similar to me in terms of in terms of tattooing the legal immigration into the country. Dr. A. Maung even wrote a letter to Donald Trump, saying that we look forward to working together with you, and I hope this piece in newsweek of an early look into our genocide had actually begun. So after this exercise in 2016, the military had three very important essence, which then they decided that when it came to 2017 that we can actually take this off in a couple of notches. The first thing that they learned was that Aung San Suu Kyi, the civilian leader, defends the military in public. Aung San Suu Kyi became a defender, a shield for all criticism against the military in the public domain. For example, with the BBC's fair go key, journalist fair go key said to her, there is ethnic cleansing going on in your country. She said ethnic cleansing is far too strong a term for what is happening. Both sides are equally to blame for drawing a moral occurrence between the aggressor and the victim. When the United Nations in March 2017 produced a report saying that 52% of women that made it to the camps in Bangladesh have been raped, so the majority of them have been raped, she said this is fake rape. That was her words on her Facebook page when she defused her quest by the BBC to take back. And I truly appreciate that Aung San Suu Kyi does not control the military, but she does control the visas in her country. And when the UN passed a resolution in March 2017 for a full scale human rights commission in Hawaii, she said this will not be very helpful, and she refused to give the UN access to Myanmar, where the UN still did not have any access at all. Just the first thing that the military learned, very important lesson, is that the most famous citizen of Myanmar is a shield against all criticism against the military in the public domain. The second thing that they learned is that despite all the evidence of ethnic cleansing, of genocide, of mass graves, of graves, et cetera, the European Union literally still wrote out a dead carpet for the military chief general, we don't mean Austria and Germany, they have a VIP ticket to all the armaments factories so that they can replenish this military. And I wrote to both of their ambassadors and they didn't respond so I published a letter once again online to ensure that it remains in the public domain, and in which I warned them that this region is going to be militarized and militarized and paid for the final offensive against this minority group. Just the second thing that they learned is that despite all the evidence of genocide, that the military chiefs could still travel around the globe openly, and there's actually no criticism of the actions and what sort of work. The third thing that they learned, the third lesson, is that the military in Myanmar was very, very unpopular, which is what forced them to have elections in the first place. The military was seen as being corrupt and out of touch, but then after this exercise against Rohingya, the military suddenly became very popular. They were seen as the defenders of Buddhist values against the 18 Muslim wars from Bangladesh. So the military did these three critical exercises after the 2016 operation and decided in 2017 that they could really take this up a couple of notches and execute the final solution to get rid of all the Rohingya from the country once and for all, which is precisely what they did. Now, one of the questions I get asked most often is about the role of Buddhism. Not surely Buddhists can be involved in something of this kind of nature. You know, Buddhists are the individuals even with the Rohingya step and sex and even when you have bad thoughts, you need to cling to yourself. But the form of Buddhism that they follow in Myanmar is not necessarily the Buddhism that you and I need to think of. It is not the Buddhism of the Dalai Lama or the Buddhism of the celebrities in Hollywood. In fact, the main of the Rohingya is the Dalai Lama. He is essentially just a whole mind and when he visited Myanmar, he was protesting from other Buddhist groups against the Dalai Lama. The form of Buddhism that they follow is known as Tera-Bhagya Buddhism which can be very militant in its nature and you only have to look at some of the servants or some of the leading Buddhist personalities from Myanmar. The servants are online on YouTube in which they openly advocate the killing of minorities. One of the chief Buddhists, one of the Buddhist leaders in Myanmar he gave me a presentation to root for the army officers. So after the 1988 revolution, the religion realized that we need to have a much better relationship with the Buddhist clergy. So they appointed a cleric, a Buddhist cleric to every single regiment so it becomes the patron for that particular regiment. And there's a video of him, his name's Sita Gu. He's sitting on a big chair, almost like a throne and all these religious officers sitting on the floor and he's giving a sermon which is telling them how the story of a king, an ancient king of Burma who was very troubled and could not sleep at night because he had killed a few people. And the Buddhist clergy, the local town realized that the king was disturbed because they had these special inclinations. So they went to the king in the middle of the night and they told him that look, we know that you can't sleep and you're disturbed because you killed these people but you have nothing to worry about because those people were not Buddhists so they were only half human. So this is the implication of this root for the army officer that it's very clear that it's non-Buddhists but only half human. And many of them believe that the Rohingya, you can see some of the others here and some individuals that came that the Rohingya have actually been reincarnated from snakes and insects. So when you do kill them, you're actually killing humans at all, you're just killing the bear men. So another key question that I get asked very often is the role of the international community. You know, why has the international community, you know, we have repeatedly said, never again, never again, and now we're saying, yet again, this is happening. You know, why is this happening? No, and why has the international community been so denied in this response? And I don't think that there's three reasons for that, there are three principle reasons, multiple reasons, but three principle reasons for you. First of all, the Rohingya, when you actually come across them, the great, one thing we realize is that the great and the bulk of the ladder is hardly anybody amongst them with even the basic college education. I've spoken about this topic to many audiences and one of the things I always say to them, you know, you've come here to hear about the Rohingya, they are obviously interested in the topic, but I beg you, now a single, one of you can name me a single Rohingya person anywhere in the world, and most of the time, nobody ever can, because there are no Rohingya in, you know, famous Rohingya celebrities. There are no Rohingya, no people of Rohingya origin working at the BBC or Al Jazeera or CNN that can take this up as a pet project to raise awareness for the people. There's no people of Rohingya origin in Silicon Valley that's made, you know, a few million dollars. I can say I'm going to put five million dollars on my money in the public awareness campaign for my people. There's no people of Rohingya origin elected to the British Parliament or the European Parliament or the Great Vailes. These people literally are right at the bottom of the ladder. There have been farmers, fishermen, rich shopkeepers, and laborers. This is the main foundation and throughout the decades, there's been a systematic campaign by the Burmese authorities to ensure that they are completely disenfranchised and do not have access to education. So there was an incident in Rohingya where we were killed in one of the camps and there was big news because he was the only one with college education in that vicinity. So it became quite big news. So this is one of the reasons I believe that these people simply cannot advocate for themselves locally, let alone internationally. And I know most of the Rohingya organizations that are operating in this space are in Rohingya. And they're quite rudimentary. Just one or two people with a fax machine. Most of them don't even know how to put together a press release. So there's not really much advocacy for them. The second reason I believe is that that there's a mess. And I've made policy makers around the world on this topic in the UK and here in Washington and even in Europe. And there's a mess surrounding Ang San Suu Keele. Ang San Suu Keele, the reality is the original name is after Lord of Democracy. It's a democracy there on the left of moving in the right direction. We understand these laws and complications. But the last thing we want to do is to put too much pressure on Ang San Suu Keele and the government in case the military then comes back again and takes power. And nobody wants that. Certainly there's lots of issues with after Lord of Democracy, with democracy, it's moving in the right direction. We want to keep it from encouraging that. And I believe this is a mess. And this is a mess being supported by Ang San Suu Keele and her supporters and the rest. The reality is that the military in Myanmar is actually in a perfect situation at the moment. They have the holy grail of politics. They have power without any accountability. They can at the moment get on with all the killing and enriching themselves dramatically. Many of them have become extremely wealthy through the J-Trade. They have huge holdings in Macau and Singapore, which is, you know, many people in the UN are free of you. And the last thing they want to do is to take back power and then bring international sanctions and international storm against them. Right now they're in the perfect position. Let Ang San Suu Keele become a lightning bolt of criticism. You'll let Ang defend the military and public whilst they go on with their ethnic cleansing policies and enriching themselves. This is, I believe, the second reason I attend multiple policy leaders who have continuously told me this that they can't put too much pressure on Myanmar. And the third reason I believe is due to Ku. When President Obama was in office, he visited Myanmar on two occasions. And for any country to get a visit from the President of the United States, it's a very big deal for that country. And why would Obama visit on two occasions? Why would the U.S. President visit on two occasions? The United States is concerned that as Myanmar opens up, and this was one of the most suspicious, one of the most close society in the world, almost like North Korea, they are concerned that as it opens up, it is falling into the sweet influence of China. China is essentially the entire Southeast Asia that is nearly redeveloped through the Belt and Road Initiative for one purpose, and that is to meet China's insatiable demand for resources. They have invested tens of billions of dollars throughout this whole region in countries like Pakistan, a country that nobody wanted to touch with a large whole. They've invested over $62 billion to the CPAC, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. So the United States is concerned that Myanmar is just another country that will open up and then it will essentially become part of the Chinese sphere and influence. Take on the other hand of access to Myanmar because China has ambitions to be a global superpower. They believe that this is their destiny, but before they can become a global superpower, it must become a regional power, and that means keeping a regional nuclear rival India in check. Access to Myanmar gives access to the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean and they can avoid the states of Malacca. So you have these geopolitical machinations going on between nuclear superpowers, U.S., China, and India, and then you insert this minority group called the Bohingya with no visa-bearing law, you can insert that into the equation except it does not fit into that larger long-term calculation. Finally, that's the third reason why there's been very little inaction from the western international community because there's much larger geopolitical strategic thinking going on. Another key question is the role of Ang Sam Sukhi and this seems to have baffled a lot of people that why has it been such silence from Ang Sam Sukhi and the situation? Why has she become this great global lawyer, this great hope of the world? Why has she been completely silent and in some cases made you argue complicit in this entire enterprise? And I believe this is much more to do with us than it is to do with her. I believe that we in the West, we have a need to have our heroes on a pedestal. We have to have our heroes on a pedestal and we have to have them untarnished. Nobody wants to hear about the shortcomings of Dr. King and Mr. Landry. Nobody wants to hear about the shortcomings of Mother Teresa or anybody else. We need to have our heroes are totally pure and her story is one of the best stories that we've ever come across. She's the doctor for one of the founding genomes of Myanmar. She was placed on the house arrest by her father's former colleagues. She's beautiful. She's articulate. She's an Oxford graduate. She speaks the Queen's English. She has a Nobel Prize. Now she's out of prison and she's opening up her country to democracy and free markets. She's fantastic. We love this kind of stuff. We need movies out of this kind of stuff. She's come to the West and she's tasted our democracy and she's going to go back to her country, her own backward country and she's going to turn her backward country into our country with our values. We love this stuff. And then we overlook many of the ideologies that these people have to go over and we have made this mistake on multiple occasions, not just with her. If you look back and you think of even in both these cases of Bashar al-Assad, the London train doctorologist who was being quoted by Tony Blair as the great reformer, then he's turned up to be one of the greatest mass followers of all time. You look at Seymour Gaddafi, PhD from the London School of Economics. It's going to be the change that Libya needs. It's actually the same threat in genocide with these people or probably the best example is Kim Jong-un, you know, educated as a sports girl. He loves Disneyland. He loves basketball. And this threat is the nuclear annihilation. So we made this mistake over and over again. We think people have come to the West to taste our democracy, our real life and we want to turn their own backward country to our country with our values, our system. We don't realise that these people are actually an elite in their society. I'm coming to George Turbarax for an interview that makes them the elite of the elite. And it made the occasions to be fair to them is that they have no choice. You know, they are either in power or they're going to be dead. So they have to do with an island best. And she's a classic example of this. I wrote a piece in music last year. It was called How We Were Seduced by Aung San Suu Kee. And in that piece I interviewed and had eight dozen people who had known her intimately for decades. Amongst them was the founder of the three Aung San Suu Kee campaign. Also, an individual refused to smuggle papers to her in prison, a huge risk to himself. And then there was an Australian member of Parliament who was a first restener to meet with her after she was released from house arrest. And then he, Aung San Suu Kee became good friend. One of the topi on the record and I published in this in the Newsweek piece that I wrote is that Aung San Suu Kee is a racist. And she has always been a racist. The fact is we just chose to do it because it fits with our narrative of what we want our heroes to be like. She has written some of our early writings. She wrote a pamphlet about her father, about General Aung San. And it states quite clearly is that we are proud of this nationalist and not let goes Kalaar. And Kalaar is a hero in the US, you can say it's the equivalent of an N word. And it was all there in 1984, it was all there in black and white. Another individual who found it the Aung San Suu Kee campaign told me that they had a woman from one of the backgrounds, she was a student in London from Kashyyid Battle, who would translate some of the press releases for them. And when she found out Aung San Suu Kee, she said she was like, I would never allow that girl to ever touch my stuff. And he said, well look, we don't have many translators that are willing to do this for me, since she said I don't care too. The implication was that these people are untrained, I don't want them ever to touch many of my things. The interesting thing is that when Aung San Suu Kee came to the United States, he was treated with credit for Obama. Obama decided to lift all sanctions of Myanmar without any conditions at all. But the interesting thing is that Obama was not the only leader that she met when she was in the United States. She also met with congressional leadership, Senate leadership, and so on, and she was going in as a great, as a great reformer and savior. She also met with the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Bob Volcker, and he may untighten this debate. The Republican Senator made the statement that he was absolutely shocked at a complete dismissiveness when he mentioned human rights, he used sexual violence and sexual trafficking in our country. And this is a, this was before the current crisis, and this is quite characteristic of a number of people that actually met with her. Is that, but you mentioned any of these issues to her, any sort of persecution, human rights issues of minorities, is that she goes into, she becomes completely outraged. And a number of people from the leaders of some of the biggest NGOs that I met with her, people that can't paint for her, including the Congress and Senate, remember that all of them do exactly the same thing. Soon as you mention anything to her, of minding these issues, she just gets completely outraged that why are you writing this up, where are you getting this condition from, and how did you see these things in front of me? So the question is, is that what's happening to the Rohingya, it was the future for the Rohingya. Unfortunately, the reality is that the Rohingya now can't paint what is the largest education camp in the world. Now you need to do a number of reputations in the globe, so you can see that Caracay, Jordan, and so on. None of them are pleasant, but I've never seen anything like this, and this is not just my interpretation. You can literally think the highest hill and look around you, and all you see are the highs, and there's a sea of humanity living in one different scholar, estimates that up to 1.4 million people have been in this condition, and they have absolutely no hope of going back. There's absolutely no reason why Myanmar is going to take them back. There's no pressure on Myanmar whatsoever. Myanmar is essentially, by all means and purposes, going away with this. And the challenge we have is that now that we have gone away with this, they are turning their attention to other minorities, and I wrote a piece on this in foreign policy, which was called, First the King for the Rohingya, because what happens is that once you open the door to one genocide, and you allow one genocide to go unpunished, but opens the door to many others, and now that they have finished with the Rohingya, the Myanmar authorities, the Myanmar military, the Tatmado, is turning its attention to other minorities, the Qashim, the Qareha, and the Shah, and the same divisions that were deployed to persecute the Rohingya, to target the Rohingya, the known as Division 33 to 99, also known as the Temple of the Spirit, they are now deployed to the country of these other minorities. This is a country that's been a civil war with almost every one of its minorities since independence. This is the longest-running civil war in the world, and the military will not rest until they create a pure, or marvelous nationalist state within the ambition of many of the elite in Myanmar. So I'll leave that there. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you. Thank you.