4 ms·

Which is the government that committed genocide? The one that lost power, the one that sized power, or some other one?

by 99_00 6y ago

elmomle 6y ago
It would seem from the language of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide, pp2) that the military (current group in power) bears chief responsibility--one thing I do know is that the military long existed as an independent power structure in the country. So it seems like they would only have driven the genocide its leaders had wanted to (given that this has been a deliberate, years-long operation). Perhaps someone with deeper knowledge could say more.
- flavius29663 6y ago
  on the first page of your link: The Burmese government dismissed these as "exaggerations" It doesn't look like the government cared too much about the well-being of the genocided population. This is a hallmark in most genocides in history. The government doesn't have to order a massacre, most of the times it's just doing nothing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - SirSavary 6y ago
    Someone once described Myanmar to me as a "military with a country" instead of a "country guarded by a military".
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      This applies to a lot of places unfortunately.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Indeed, a country occupied by a hostile army that happens to be their own.
  - joshstrange 6y ago
    I'm not an expert on this but from what I've heard it sounds like the "government" (which, remember, had 1/4th of it's seats and cabinet-type positions apportioned to the military, by the military) might not have had a "good" option on how to respond to this. It appears they stayed silent on it for fear the military would just stage a coup if they spoke out. As it turns out the military did in fact stage a coup as soon as they saw their hold on the government weakening (right after the recent election and when the newly elected people were coming to be sworn in is when they executed the coup). On one hand I want to say the "government" didn't care and should be held accountable for not speaking up about the genocide. On the other hand I see how they might have been too scared to call it out for fear of a coup. Fears that seems to have been well founded... As with most things it's not black and white.
    - firstSpeaker 6y ago
      >>On the other hand I see how they might have been too scared to call it out for fear of a coup. Fears that seems to have been well founded... Not a good reason. Whenever I hear or read something about a group allowing, being silent in face of an event like that, I remember Srebrenica massacre [1] I clearly remember how Aung San Suu Kyi defends Myanmar from accusations of genocide in UN [2]. She and her government are as much party to the genocide as those who pulled the triggers. I hope I live long enough to see the day they are brought to justice. 1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre 2- https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/12/1053221 https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/12/1053221
      - prashantsengar 6y ago
        Of course they are a party to the genocide. But when you have to choose between the genocide of one ethnic communities AND the genocide but by a non-accountable government, you may risk choosing the former.
flavius29663 6y ago
The one that lost power in the coup. They were in office since 2016. The genocide started in 2016. This seems to be a complicated situation, just like it was in Syria, and anyone who tries to simplify it and show a single sided story is trying to sell you.
- kyawzazaw 6y ago
  That's not actually accurate. The genocide started way before 2016. It started with the 1962 law and the more brutal cleansing in 1980s. There are a few books that I can recommend if you would like to read more.
colinmhayes 6y ago
Even when Myanmar had a democratically elected government the military still had huge political power because the constitution had a clause that let them retake power whenever they wanted. The legitimate leader was always afraid of this happening, so it's quite hard to separate the two governments.
- Rule35 6y ago
  So it was a legal coup? What gives one side legitimacy?
  - prashantsengar 6y ago
    The Government that was thrown was elected by the people. This gives them legitimacy.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      But the election was governed by the same constitution that apparently gives the military these powers...
garmaine 6y ago
It was the military that was committing genocide, and the prior government was unable to control them.

Which is the government that committed genocide? The one that lost power, the one that sized power, or some other one?

by 99_00 6y ago

Which is the government that committed genocide? The one that lost power, the one that sized power, or some other one?

It would seem from the language of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide, pp2) that the military (current group in power) bears chief responsibility--one thing I do know is that the military long existed as an independent power structure in the country. So it seems like they would only have driven the genocide its leaders had wanted to (given that this has been a deliberate, years-long operation). Perhaps someone with deeper knowledge could say more.

flavius29663 6y ago
on the first page of your link: The Burmese government dismissed these as "exaggerations" It doesn't look like the government cared too much about the well-being of the genocided population. This is a hallmark in most genocides in history. The government doesn't have to order a massacre, most of the times it's just doing nothing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SirSavary 6y ago
  Someone once described Myanmar to me as a "military with a country" instead of a "country guarded by a military".
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    This applies to a lot of places unfortunately.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Indeed, a country occupied by a hostile army that happens to be their own.
- joshstrange 6y ago
  I'm not an expert on this but from what I've heard it sounds like the "government" (which, remember, had 1/4th of it's seats and cabinet-type positions apportioned to the military, by the military) might not have had a "good" option on how to respond to this. It appears they stayed silent on it for fear the military would just stage a coup if they spoke out. As it turns out the military did in fact stage a coup as soon as they saw their hold on the government weakening (right after the recent election and when the newly elected people were coming to be sworn in is when they executed the coup). On one hand I want to say the "government" didn't care and should be held accountable for not speaking up about the genocide. On the other hand I see how they might have been too scared to call it out for fear of a coup. Fears that seems to have been well founded... As with most things it's not black and white.
  - firstSpeaker 6y ago
    >>On the other hand I see how they might have been too scared to call it out for fear of a coup. Fears that seems to have been well founded... Not a good reason. Whenever I hear or read something about a group allowing, being silent in face of an event like that, I remember Srebrenica massacre [1] I clearly remember how Aung San Suu Kyi defends Myanmar from accusations of genocide in UN [2]. She and her government are as much party to the genocide as those who pulled the triggers. I hope I live long enough to see the day they are brought to justice. 1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre 2- https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/12/1053221 https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/12/1053221
    - prashantsengar 6y ago
      Of course they are a party to the genocide. But when you have to choose between the genocide of one ethnic communities AND the genocide but by a non-accountable government, you may risk choosing the former.

flavius29663 6y ago

The one that lost power in the coup. They were in office since 2016. The genocide started in 2016. This seems to be a complicated situation, just like it was in Syria, and anyone who tries to simplify it and show a single sided story is trying to sell you.

kyawzazaw 6y ago
That's not actually accurate. The genocide started way before 2016. It started with the 1962 law and the more brutal cleansing in 1980s. There are a few books that I can recommend if you would like to read more.

colinmhayes 6y ago

Even when Myanmar had a democratically elected government the military still had huge political power because the constitution had a clause that let them retake power whenever they wanted. The legitimate leader was always afraid of this happening, so it's quite hard to separate the two governments.

Rule35 6y ago
So it was a legal coup? What gives one side legitimacy?
- prashantsengar 6y ago
  The Government that was thrown was elected by the people. This gives them legitimacy.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    But the election was governed by the same constitution that apparently gives the military these powers...

garmaine 6y ago

It was the military that was committing genocide, and the prior government was unable to control them.