Why Was Nobody Talking About: The Burmese/Myanmar Genocide

Reason #1) Well, reason number 1 is pretty simple. There's a high chance you read the title of this post and thought something close to "What is Burma or Myanmar?" And there's a good reason for that. The War on Drugs. Burma, renamed Myanmar, but it depends on who you ask, (I will be using these interchangeably as Burmese is much nicer to read than Myanmarian) lies inside what is known as the "Golden Triangle" named by the CIA in the 20th century. This area of South East Asia produces most of the world's heroin. Myanmar is the world's second largest producer of heroin behind Afghanistan. The best way to make sure your people aren't asking for Premium Grade A Burmese Heroin by name is to let them forget that Myanmar exists, and most of the people in Western Culture have definitely forgotten about Myanmar. Until recently. Well, most of the western world. We, as humans, like to think of ourselves as progressive, smart, and better than we have ever been. When in reality, there aren't many other species of plant or animal, who kill their own kind. But that's a topic for another day and probably for another blogger, as that is a can of worms I will not be opening.

Reason #2) During the last half of the 19th century, and first half of the 20th, when the British ruled India, Burma (as it was known back then) was considered a territory of India, and was controlled as such. However, when the British left India, Burma decided it wasn't part of India, and India agreed (after some minor convincing). For the second half of the 20th century, Myanmar was known mostly for its heroin and its beautiful landscapes. But there was something dastardly lying underneath the dense canopies and between the mountain peaks. Myanmar hosts the worlds longest running civil war (1948-present). Current numbers count up to 250,000 casualties, and up to a million civilians displaced from their homes. So beneath its calm Buddhist exterior, there lies a darker secret than heroin. When the civilians first started to appear as refugees in neighboring countries in late August of 2017, it was believed that once again the civil war was getting bloodier. (It also must be noted that outside media is not allowed in many of the factions areas so not too much is known even now about the war.)

Reason #3) When the displaced civilians started appearing in neighboring countries, and the UN started to get involved in early September 2017, it was noticed that most of them were Rohingya Muslims. Investigations got underway, and the disproportionate number of military forces in the area of Myanmar home to many Rohingya. Clearly then, this wasn't part of the civil war. On September 11th of 2017, many of the Human Rights leaders of the UN started noticing that this was a "textbook example of ethnic cleansing." And only a few days later it was found that on September 7th of 2017, more than 1,000 Rohingya had been killed across the region. By the end of that week, it was estimated that over 3,000 Rohingyans had already been killed. This was clearly an alarm to the UN. When trying to import aid across the border later in the month, UN troops were denied access to the region by the Burmese soldiers.

Reason #4) The title of this post isn't technically accurate. Most nations who have a position in the UN consider this a genocide, and have been reporting on it since the beginning. For example, the BBC, and other European news outlets all had something to say about it in 2017. Why then was the first time I heard about it was in October of 2017, nearly a month later via NPR? That answer is pretty simple actually. The United States did not recognize the happenings in Myanmar as a genocide. They consider it to be an "Ethnic Cleansing." Which the UN and indeed most countries tend to consider a genocide. But why doesn't the United States? Rex Tillerson, the US Secretary of State at the time, blamed the Burmese military and local insurgents for committing such "horrendous atrocities" but still refused to consider what was happening a genocide.

Reason #5) So why didn't the United States do anything about it. Well, thanks to a little piece of literature known as the Geneva Convention, genocides require international interference, but ethnic cleansings do not. You may ask, what is the difference, as I did. Well, after some more research, it started to make sense, albeit annoying and frustrating. According to official statements the United States "is wary of action that could hurt the wider economy or destabilize already tense ties between Suu Kyi and the army." (Suu Kyi is the leader of Myanmar) This makes sense right? Well kind of. Suu Kyi is indeed the leader of Myanmar, but technically has no power over the Burmese military. Additionally, throughout the whole ordeal, Suu Kyi made it pretty clear that she had no intentions of stopping the genocide. So that definitely isn't the reason. Some conspiracy theorists will tell you that the United States is funding the international heroin trade and that is why they wouldn't intervene. Personally, I think it has to do with a little something called Vietnam, and well, we know how that went. The terrain and climate in Myanmar has many similarities with Vietnam, and its military likes to fight in the same way. Additionally, we aren't thought of fondly in South East Asia, and US interference probably wouldn't be in our best interests. But why wasn't there any news stories about it?

Reason #6) Well, there were, but in order to keep the public from pushing to call this a genocide, it was kept relatively quiet here. Which allowed the public to ignore what was happening and not try to take action.

But is this where this should conclude? Personally, I do not believe so. Ask anyone in the United States about the most recent genocide, and chances are you'll either hear Rwanda, or nothing at all. But why keep it silent? Some people will probably argue that it has something to do with America's views on the Muslim people, and some will say that it's because the United States is planning something similar. I do not agree with either of these statements. Especially when it is so simple to follow world news nowadays, those who care about the topic will look at the US government and hate them even more for it. I know I did, as did others, and probably some of you reading this. Although I consider what was happening in Myanmar a genocide, from the political standpoint, it made sense for the United States to not. Either way, they should not have kept the public in the dark on such a dark topic.

Lazy Works Cited:

1. https://5clpp.com/2018/06/26/genocide-in-myanmar-why-has-the-united-states-not-intervened/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_in_Myanmar#Rohingya_persecution_and_mass_exodus_of_2017
3. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-un-calls-it-genocide-why-wont-the-us/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Triangle_(Southeast_Asia)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Myanmar

Further Reading:

1. https://borgenproject.org/seven-facts-about-the-rohingya-genocide/
2. https://www.ajc.com/news/world/who-are-the-rohingya-muslims-things-know-about-the-world-most-persecuted-minority/MzQM06SjX8k0hGKz0t9cnM/
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561