Burma's Muslim Problem

Burma (Myanmar) is going through a lot of change, much of it for the better. The country after decades of military dictatorship is finally opening up and there is a lot to be hopeful of in this nation. There is however a very ugly side to developments in Burma for the Muslim minority community there.

Buddhist extremism has been spreading across the country. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced and many killed. Villages have been burned to the ground, mosques raided and schools attacked. As an example of the widespread violence a middle school in Meiktila was stormed and students and teachers massacred while police officers and a mob watched chanting “kill them”. This violence is largely brought on by the Buddhist extremists behind the 969 movement. These monks support religious purity and have been doing much to incite violence against Muslims. Time magazine did an excellent cover story on radical Buddhism, but I still feel the gravity or even presence of these atrocities is not resonating with people here.

There are in my mind three major reasons for this. The first is an inexplicable and dangerous romanticization of Buddhism. Buddhists are treated as imminently peaceful, we think of innocuous New Age yuppies who have “Free Tibet” bumper stickers, do Yoga and are also Buddhist. Buddhists, the thinking goes, can never do anything bad because they have a peaceful religion. When bringing up the topic of Burmese Muslims massacres to peers, almost without fail the typical reaction is one of disbelief because Buddhists do not hurt people. There however seems to be a forgetfulness that other religions which have had horrible things done in their name, such as Christianity or Islam, also preach peacefulness. I cannot think of a single major religion that is intrinsically violent yet for some reason Buddhism is treated as the only one with some sort of special privilege. Now to be clear, I think skepticism is healthy, and many horrible things have and are continuing to be done in the name of religion, this is indisputable. I also believe in tolerance for religions, including Buddhism. The point is that because of a belief in a bizarre special status where Buddhism is the sole religion that cannot be twisted into extremism, it has made the story of the massacres against Muslims in Burma that much harder to reach general consciousness in the West.

The second element if this is very closely related to the first. Many have the unfortunate tendency, whether conscious or not, to think of Muslims as the extremists and therefore find it very difficult to see them as victims. This makes it even more difficult for ordinary people to relate to as a result of such constant inundation from the media of Muslims being terrorists. This along with a preconceived notion that Buddhists must be peaceful cannot help but make this story incredibly difficult to penetrate the mainstream news cycles.

Finally, a huge portion of blame lies on the Burmese authorities and pro-democracy supporters. Thein Sein, the man who currently leads the military junta in Burma has done little to quell the violence and the military, as well as the police have done little but watch as people are butchered in front of them. This does much to taint his positive record as a reformer within the country. The most egregious silence has however been from Aung San Suu Kyi. The pro-democracy campaigner and Nobel Peace Prize laureate has been deafeningly silent on the issue. Despite widespread criticism of her lack of engagement in the issue Ms. Suu Kyi has refused to take a stand on the atrocities happening in her country. Her unwillingness to speak against what is happening is disgusting for someone given the honour of the Nobel Peace Prize. The silence of these important people within Burma and the international reputation they have is another critical reason why this story has not been covered in more depth.

Burma is at a critical juncture in its history, there is a lot of promise for this newly opening nation. With this promise comes a current devastating situation for a minority population. The West has done much to encourage democratic reforms, this is important but cannot be done while casting a blind eye to the horrors confronting so many Burmese. None of us should let the optimism for the future of this country hide the very real terror that too many Burmese are living in right now.

Ukraine: Europe's Battleground

Events have recently come to a head in Ukraine with the forced police dispersion of protesters early on Saturday morning, and calls for more protests and a nationwide strike from the opposition. All this because the Ukrainian president decided not to sign an association agreement with the EU. This agreement is not even that major an event, it is the first in a very long and slow process of EU membership, and by no means guarantees entry into the EU club. It does little but offer Free Trade and the prospect of potential future integration.  

Before really examining this issue however, you would be forgiven for not having played especially close attention to Ukraine, so some backstory to this would be prudent. Russia has created a self-styled "Eurasian Union" meant to compete with the EU and preserve Russian influence, primarily in ex-Soviet countries. At the moment the only two members (aside from Russia) are Belarus and Kazakhstan. The former has the dubious distinction of being Europe's last dictatorship and the latter has an unfortunate tendency of torturing those that oppose its autocratic leader. Unsurprisingly, Ukrainians are not interested in joining this group, though Russia desperately wants them to. Ukraine's not so distant past under the auspices of the Soviet Union as one of the poorest and most abused (as well as arguably being the target of genocide under Stalin) ex-Soviet Republics is not easily forgotten. Russian action to date has not helped ameliorate the perception Ukrainians have towards Russia. Turning off the gas in the middle of winter in 2009, when Ukrainians desperately needed to heat their homes and generally using natural gas as a lever to control Ukraine has not enamored the Ukrainian public to Russia. I saw this first hand on a recent visit to Kyiv in which national magazine covers had a depiction of Russian President Putin with a knife to the throat of Ukrainian President Yanukovych.  

So basically, Russia has a lot of power over Ukraine and Ukrainians (as with most former USSR republics) want closer ties to the West and the EU. Amid threats of trade sanctions and the usual gas politics, President Yanukovych stated he could not sign the EU association agreement and gave in to Russia. What is especially interesting here however is not the Russian pressure exerted on Ukraine, which is the usual in this era of increased efforts to exert international influence by Russia, or Ukraine's response of acquiescing to Russian demands, but in fact the EU reaction.

The EU has successfully integrated and created common policies in many areas, but foreign affairs has not been one of them. Each individual country in the EU still has what is in effect full control over their foreign policy. Some moves were made to create a common EU foreign policy. Chief among them was the creation of the External Action Service. This is meant to be the EU department of foreign affairs and has “embassies” around the world. They do very little though (with the notable exception that the EU EAS plays an important role in trade deals, which are an exclusive competency of the EU), and Catherine Ashton the head of this department, is also mostly useless. She states common EU positions, which are usually self-evident things such as saying maybe it would be nice if North Korea stopped threatening everyone with Nuclear Weapons, but never anything of substance. The only significant political achievements she has had in this role were brokering an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia, and assisting in the nuclear discussion between Iran and the P5+1. Both of these roles were essentially as a mediator and are a far cry from exhibiting strong EU foreign policy.

But things might be changing with Ukraine. In response to Yanukovych's announcement that he would not be seeking the association agreement in Ukraine, the EU immediately dispatched the Commissioner for Enlargement to apply pressure on Yanukovych to change his mind. Even more starkly at the summit in Vilnius Lithuania, where the deal was supposed to have been signed, EU Commission President Barroso has some very strong words for Russia. He said Russia should not be handed a veto over sovereign Ukraine's relations with the rest of Europe. He also stated that this decision was a "road to nowhere" and that "the Ukrainian people should be disappointed". Enlargement Commissioner Füle said that "if you blink in front of Russia, you always end up in trouble, Yanukovych blinked too soon." It is worth noting that all EU countries support Ukraine adopting the Association agreement. Still, in my view this is an EU initiative, with the EU taking the lead and directing, not following member-states as usual. And while some countries eagerly want to encourage more countries to move towards EU membership, many others look with trepidation towards adding more countries to crisis prone Europe.

Ukraine is hugely important, it is the largest and most strategically important of the ex-Soviet Republics not clearly aligned with Russia or the EU. The EU has begun to show that it can pursue an aggressive and independent foreign policy, at least in this area. For all those in Ukraine, and across the Eastern Europe block who so clearly yearn for a future in Europe, hopefully EU leaders will continue to demonstrate strength in the face of Russia's bullying.