Some thoughts on Bangladesh…

I’m trying to collect all my thoughts on the ongoing political situation in Bangladesh and write something meaningful, but it’s proving difficult. Emotions are so heightened and opinions are so polarised its difficult to engage in a conversation with a person without having a few fireworks set off

It’s seems like as a people we haven’t progressed much in terms of thought ever since 1971. We still have very narrow racial thinking, bad leadership, and suffer through the inability to feel the pain of others. It’s a shame.

Before I carry on, I would like to point out that we are commanded to speak justly and stand for justice. وإذا قلتم فاعدلوا
It’s important to be fair in our speech and actions. Oppression is darkness on Yawm al-Qiyama

I’m not a supporter of Jamaat Islami nor am I a supporter of the Awami League. I support ordinary people who have to suffer because of the indecisiveness of these political parties. I support human life and condemn killings committed by both sides.

Think about it, over 3 million people were killed over a period of 8 months and 250,000 women were raped. Don’t deny it. Do not the family members of those killed deserve justice? Do you understand their pain, really? Be honest with yourself

At the same time, how can you support a tribunal that has no international oversight, has been heavily criticised for its lack of fairness and transparency? Do you really think these people want justice or do you think they are pandering towards their desire to root out the opposition? Be honest with yourself

I just feel like things are out of control and the events unfolding are extremely sad.

From soldier back to child

I read a memoir recently from a child soldier (now adult) that fought alongside his country’s army in Sierra Leone that inspired me to write this piece and hopefully shed some light on the matter to those that are currently in the dark.

There is said to be an estimated 300,000-500,000 child soldiers in the world, with Africa being home to 200,000 of them–a number I feel to be much greater.

Children have been incorporated into war/war life throughout the history of the world; however, since the early 1980s, that number has drastically risen, specifically in Western and Central Africa. Countries in Africa that are using child soldiers now, and have in the past, include: Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and numerous others.

Most people are familiar with the use of children as soldiers during the American Civil War, but they were also used by Nazis and, most recently, in the War in Iraq. So what are the differences between child soldiers in those wars and the ones in Sierra Leone, Liberia and the Congo? Religion, independence, and political ideology have been the driving core in the past. In Africa, greed and power fuels harsh and manipulative regimes, and most of the world has done nothing to interfere.

Why choose children? The children living in African countries torn by war are typically between the ages of 7-10, with most of the children being around 10-years-old. In turn, this means they have little education, almost all live in poverty, their environments are already unstable from living in a war zone, and most have lost their parents and other family members. This all makes children susceptible to manipulation and/or easy to force into combat through intimidation, drugs, abuse, and abduction. Most children that join the army or rebel forces, do so under economic pressures, as a survival strategy; this is sometimes the case for them to simply be able to have a meal available each day. Child soldiers are extremely loyal and are very good at obtaining information, as a result of appearing youthful and innocent.

So why should we be concerned about the welfare of a child in Africa? All I ever hear when these topics are brought up for discussion is, “We have so many problems here in America that need to be fixed first!” These issues may seem foreign, but even if inhumane treatment of children doesn’t make you want to stand up for human rights, there are more reasons that will. The exploitation of children in Africa is not a small matter–it is a process of self-destruction. This directly correlates to the lack of growth within Africa. These children are future leaders, teachers, business owners, travelers, and parents. The cycle of war is damaging enough; when involving children, it will only create more war, anger, hurt, hate, and violence.

The children are raped, witnesses to rape, forced to murder strangers and their own family members to prove their bravery and loyalty, and are given drugs to which they become addicted. All of these children have had their lives stolen from them. The children in these countries are the true victims of these wars and we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to any situation as dire as this one. Even spreading awareness is drastically influential. We have to ensure these children will never again have to face a combat situation.

*For further information, please visit any of the following:

http://www.africaaction.org/

http://www.childsoldiers.org/

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/crp/index.htm

Syrian Freedom Chant

Ibrahim Qashoush was a fireman and amateur poet from Hama, Syria.

During the 2011 Syrian uprising, Qashoush was noted for singing and authoring songs mocking Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and the ruling Ba’ath party.

On 4 July 2011, Qashoush was found dead in the Orontes River, his throat cut and his vocal cords ripped out. After his murder, fellow protesters hailed Qashoush as the “nightingale of the revolution”.

they may have removed his throat, but his voice is still heard and continues to inspire the world

A Palestinian State?

Through recent history there have been several attempts for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, however all attempts have failed and been rejected by world organisation bodies and nations. I will attempt to identify what have been some of the reasons for this failure. These range from Border disputes to U.S. foreign policy. Many debates have been held by experts in this field, and I will attempt to narrow down the main aspects such as: the constant dispute of Borders, the Wall, who will get hold of East Jerusalem, the constant disagreements between Hamas and Fatah and the influence the Zionist lobby holds on American politics.

World renowned professor who has addressed this issue is Professor Norman Finkelstein he suggested that the sole reason for the failure for an independent Palestinian state is Israel’s refusal to collaborate with the Palestinian opposition or to follow the guidelines which the U.N. has provided. Finkelstein refutes Israel claim that before a Palestinian state is achieved, Palestinian authorities must accept peace. Finkelstein points out “each time Hamas agreed to a truce at some time Israel has sabotage the truce and instigate Hamas into retaliating. He gives the reason why Israel does that by Former Foreign Minister Zipni Lizni “When Israel accepted the truce, it wanted to create a temporary period of calm. A long term of calm harms Israelis strategic goal, in powers Hamas and gives the impression that Israel recognises the movement.”. Finkelstein expands by saying that Israel does not want a truce because it is fearful it may legitimate Hamas and give the impression that Israel recognises the movement. He identifies that that Israel refusal to recognise Palestinian authorities has an impact on the push for statehood. Finkelstein also suggests that Israel’s constant refusal to follow international law is virtually making an independent Palestinian state. For instance, he points out that that in Article 2 of the UN charter it is forbidden for countries to gain territory by war. This, however, is how Israel assumed control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip after winning the six day war in 1967. Even the International Criminal Court says that those are Occupied Palestinian Territories and not disputed land as Israel puts it. One of the other major obstacles for an independent Palestinian state is Israel refusal to remove Israeli settlements from the occupied West Bank.

Also one of the main obstacles for the achievement for an independent Palestinian state is the constant disagreement between the two parties representing Palestine and Israel refusal to recognise the democratically elected Hamas as being an legitimate representative of the Palestinian peoples in Gaza. On the one hand theirs Fatah led by Mahmoud Abbas which to some extent governs the West Bank and Hamas who governs the Gaza strip led by Khaled Mashal. Recently a unification deal was achieved and this was seen as a triumph by most governments while Israel and the U.S. saw this as a triumph for terrorism. Mark Regev Israeli spokesman said “that Hamas becoming into the Palestinian government was a victory for terrorism”. Chomsky says this statement it self-brought huge problems to an already problematic issue, it made Israel position clear saying that any peace deal agreement won’t be achieved until Hamas is represented in the Palestinian government. On the other side Hamas position is very clear, they don’t recognise Israel because till the right of return is achieved which Israel oppresses because it fears that a return of Palestinian refugees because it fears that if this is achieved the demographic nature of Israel will change and will result into a state which is inhabited mostly of Palestinians, that would make virtually the existence of Israel as a problematic one.

Israel internal political arena also causes issues for the achievement for an independent Palestinian state. El-Alami argues that the constant disagreements between the Labour (coalition) government and the Likout (coalition) government over the issue of the recognition of a Palestinian state. In the beginning of the millennium Israel and Palestine were in advanced talks in a peace deal at Taba an Egyptian resort town in January 2001. “At this meeting Israeli and Palestinian representatives agreed in accordance with the UN Security council resolution 242,” that the 4 June 1967 lines would be the borders between the state of Palestine and Israel. Both sides agreed to the principle of “land exchange and sovereignty for their respective areas”. Both sides accepted that Palestine should have sovereignty over Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem and Israel should sovereignty over Jewish neighbourhoods. Israel and Palestine agreed that Jerusalem would be the capital of both Israel Palestine. However the agreement was scrapped as the government of Ehud Barack was thrown out of office and replaced and by the right wing government of Ariel Sharon. Since 2001 there have been several attempts for both sides to sit at the negotiations table but all previous agreements have scrapped. Tzipi Livni former Israeli foreign minister demands that Palestine will have to accept an Israeli military presence in the West Bank and supports Palestine as being a Police state but at no means would Palestine deploy a military (Aljazeera). However this proposal contradicts the idea of a sovereign state, Chris Brown defines a sovereign as “the principle that within its territorial boundaries the state is the supreme political authority, and that outside those boundaries the state recognises no higher political authority” Chris Brown also adds that in order for a state to be sovereign it must own a strong defence force something the Israeli government clearly objects. The constant change of positions in the Israeli government has caused problems in these fragile negations.

According to Grace Halsell The Zionist lobby holds an immense power over American politics which means the politically and economically strongest nation in the world sides with Israel, making it almost impossible for the Palestinian territories to become its own state. Grace Halsell argues that the American far right would never allow the state of Palestine to be created. In support, she states in her book ‘Prophecy and politics’ that the hidden agenda behind America far right policies is that it is trying to recreate bible prophecies that would initiate the Armageddon war which will eventually bring Jesus back on earth according to their beliefs. In order to achieve this, the children of Israel must return to biblical Palestine and establish the law of God. This results the creation of a Jewish homeland on biblical Palestine. In her book she also suggest due to the heavy funding the Zionist lobby run the senate resulting in all decisions for a pro-Palestinian state to be abandon as this would upset donors. This is also been suggested by Noam Chomsky and Ron David where they agree that American foreign policy has always and will always be influenced by Zionist lobby’s and Israelis interest.

The continuation of settler construction on occupied Palestinian territories has also been a major obstacle for an independent Palestinians state. Many diplomats and academics such as Jeremy Salt and Norman Finkelstein have agreed that this is one of the main issues blocking the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state. Finkelstein points out that in Article 49 of the fourth Genève convention “it is forbidden for an occupying power to transfer its population to occupied territories’”. Israel’s constant refusal to follow international law has resulted in confrontations between the Israeli defence force and Palestinian militant groups, hardening already cold relations. Also, Palestinian politicians have made it very clear that they will not sit at the ‘negotiating table’ until Israel removes all its settlers and settlements from the West Bank, which them makes the entire idea of a Palestinian state more problematic. The settlements are the basic barrier of a Palestinian state according to Finkelstein he says they separate Palestinian villages and also it forces Israel to deploy its military. He famously quotes former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon who famously said in 1998 “Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” This clearly shows figureheads of the Israeli government actually don’t approve oblige by international law according to Finkelstein and they don’t support the idea of an independent Palestinian state.

The construction of a Wall separating Israel from the West Bank is also an important reason why ‘efforts for an independent Palestine state appear to be continuously hampered’ as the wall has currently taken 21% of Palestinian occupied land directly into the absolute control of Israel authorities. This has been described as apartheid by Jeremy Salt and Tesmund Tutu. The wall also cuts thru east Jerusalem showing again Israel breaking of International Law.

Jeremy Salt suggest that Israel is above international law and the continuing Vetoes of the United States concerning the condemnation of illegal behaviour encourages the present behaviour which make the Palestinian to despair. The chairman of the PLO Mahmoud Abbas in these days is oriented to request the UN general assembly to give the Palestinian territory the status of a non-member state which it is hoped will boost its international status

A History of Burmese Muslim Persecution

Burma, also known as Myanmar in common English, situated in Southeast Asia and bordered by India, Bangladesh, China, Laos and Thailand is the 40th largest in the country in the world, and the second largest in Southeast Asia.

Religious diversity percentages host a 89:4:4:2:1 ratio as per Buddhism, Christianity, Islam (approximately 6-10% of the population), other religions and Hinduism respectively. Originating from India and China, Muslims were brought to Burma by the colonising British.

More than 20000 Burmese Rohingya Muslims have migrated to Bangladesh over the past 20 years to escape on-going persecution. Rohingya Muslims often still have problems with their citizenship and some still live in Burma as illegal immigrants.

Currently tipping into the 20th century, the spirited anti-Muslim and anti-Indian movement has hosted riots from the early 1900s.

History of Burmese Muslims, and their deaths

Byat Wi, the first Burmese Muslim according to Glass Palace Chronicle , is reported to have been killed under the rule of Mon, a Thaton King, circa 1050 AD, who reputed his strength. The execution of two of Byat Wi’s brother’s sons followed, as they refused the orders of forced labour by King Mon.

Rahman Khan (Nga Yaman Kan) was assassinated by a sniper for religious and political reason, after committing treason to his king.

The most famous of historic Burmese Muslim killings is arguably the massacre of Mogul Emperor of India Shah Jahan’s son, Sultan Shah Juha’s followers in Arakan. However, these killings were reportedly unrelated to religion or community, but rather politics. After losing to his brother, Aurangzeb, he is reported to have fled with his family to Arakan where he traded with Arakan and Chittagong pirate king Sandathudama (1652-1687 AD) who eventually grew greedy and attempted to force himself on Shah’s daughter. Following a reportedly unsuccessful rebellion, Shah and his followers were killed (Shah’s death is disputed, but his death is concluded based on numerous reports).

Muslims who lived under Burmese king Bayintnaung (1550-1589 AD) were prohibited from celebrating Eid as well as eating halal food by means of slaughtering animals according to Islamic ruling. King Alaungpaya (1752–1760) also prohibited Muslims from sacrificing animals in the name of God.

King Bodawpaya (1782–1819) was known for having notoriously killed 4 Burmese Imams (Islamic leader in related context) who refused pork ingestion.
1900s
The 1900s saw many anti-Indian and anti-Muslim riots in Burma under British rule. Originally diverse by race and culture, Muslims were placed as one by the Buddhist majority and the British after the First World War. Tribes of Burma and Yegar Muslims blame the anti-Muslim and anti-Indian sentiments on early persecution of Buddhist and Hindus during the Mogul empire when they were forced to accept Islam. It is also blamed on a lower standard of living, degraded work, Indian colonialists, Indian-controlled monopoly of the economy, competition and the recession.

Riots in 1930 and 1938 proved the extent of anti-Muslim and anti-Indian movement, the motion eventually intervened by the British. Despite an enquiry by The Simon Commission stipulating that separate land be given to Burmese Muslims, that they attain full citizenship, be allowed to follow and practice their religion and customs, be allowed to own and trade property, be allowed to receive government grants as per their educational and charitable institutions, and also encouraged a separate government independent of India, the British rejected all but the separation of government suggestion.

Burmese action against minority groups was shockingly original in defying the British, but using the Muslims and Indians as methods to initiate rebellion had proven easier than simply starting one without anyone to take the fall. Disguised as Muslim and Indian-hatred, riots, protests and political movement were fuelled by extreme media support, newspapers being their main source of inspiration.

1938 saw the Burmese start a campaign against minority groups, sparking violence and brutality. Muslims were assaulted and killed, and their properties destroyed. According to Yegar Muslims, 113 mosques were destroyed in Burma.

Sourced by Yegar Muslims, political movement had been a key factor in Muslim rejection in Burma. After the formation of the Burma Muslim Congress before World War II, influential U Razaq was elected President. However, after rejection of a Muslim department for Muslim affairs, the former party was asked to dissolve. Buddhism was then declared the state of religion against any or all minorities. Ruling against Muslims had intensified, especially in regard to customs, religious sacrifice and pilgrimage.

1962’s period worsened the situation when General Ne Win removed Muslims from the Burmese Army. External influence against Muslims in other countries somewhat directly affected Burmese Muslims. Violence and brutality extended to the Burmese Muslims as actions against Islamist extremists in Afghanistan and Indonesia furthered the intensity. Buddhist monks, known to proclaim peace and harmony, destroyed mosques, property and massacred Muslim communities, causing Muslim rebellion and interest in resistance groups.

March 1997 furthered Muslim persecution when a special, historic Buddha statue was vandalised. ‘Houtman and Gustaaf’s Mental Culture in Burmese Crisis Politics,’ states that the statue was left with a gaping hole in the centre where a magical ruby of victory was presumed to have been. A crowd of 1000-1500 Burmese monks and citizens began rioting against Muslims in Kaingdan, Mandalay on March 16th, 1997, after a supposed rape of a girl by Muslim men. Homes and shops were looted, mosques and transportation destroyed and burnt. Image Asia had originally provided pictures, but has removed them. The Chronology for Rohingya (Arakanese) in Burma reports that three people were killed and 100 monks arrested.

Extreme rebellion was displayed in 2001 when Burmese monks and anti-Muslim protesters began distributing pamphlets called Myo Pyauk Hmar Soe Kyauk Sa Yar (The Fear of Losing Ones Race). However, Crackdown of Burmese Muslims, published in July 2002 states that the origin of the anti-Muslim movement in this case was somewhat based on the unrest in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Anti-Muslim riots in May 2001 hosted violent, brutal killings and destruction in the Pegu division of Taungoo. Around 200 Muslims were killed, 11 mosques demolished and 400 houses burnt down. 20 Muslim men were killed whilst praying in the Han Tha mosque, and others beaten to death.

Flourishing in 2012, Burmese Muslim persecution and the general sense of overlooking the abused human rights situation in Burma is troubling. It’s late to realise the on-going extent of persecution and ignorance, but correcting the lack of action is worthy. Mainstream media has been slow in reporting, and Burmese censorship over state information has limited journalists from distributing material. Surprisingly, the law is claimed to have been altered this week, according to the Buddhist-controlled Burmese authorities, and the media have been slightly more active in involvement. However, the silence of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi has questioned her credibility, with only rumours to fuel her already-doubted position. As the internationally acclaimed and active face of Burmese politics and human rights in Burma, her unexpected lack of opinion as well as action is shocking. Rumours of her request for European military intervention are without source, and Burmese military action itself is poor. One can only hope she does in fact, live up to her image.