When the entire nation including the northeastern states of India, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh that border Bangladesh, is reeling under violent protests over the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act, in a strange turn of events, Bangladesh’s telecom regulatory authority has ordered operators to shut down services along the Indian border out of fear that Indian Muslims might seek to enter Bangladesh after the act.

It may be recalled that despite agitation by people of northeastern states of India, like Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, and protests by Congress-led opposition parties, the Indian Parliament passed its Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) on December 11, 2019. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill will grant citizenship to the non-Muslims – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jains, and Parsis – from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan on the plea that they fled their parent countries on account of religious persecution and arrived in India before December 31, 2014.

The Citizen Amendment Act has not only rattled Indian Muslims, but neighboring Muslim nations are also apprehensive of the fallout of the CAA. Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have expressed displeasure over the exclusion of Muslims from the act. They said that the law is against the secular fabric of the Indian constitution, and it is anti-Muslim, meant to deprive Muslims of Indian citizenship.

Why Are Muslim Nations Unsettled?

Their primary worry is that as per the CAA, India is the homeland for Hindus, and for the other five religions, it is a country that will offer them sanctuary. Hindus from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are charged $2.79 for overstay of more than 91 days, and for more than two years, it is $6.97. Muslims, overstaying up to 90 days, are charged $400, and for those overstaying for more than two years, the cost is $500.

Whereas Ambassador of Afghanistan to India, Tahir Qadiry publically stated that his government has been “respecting the minorities, especially Sikh brothers and sisters”, Bangladesh suddenly canceled two scheduled ministerial visits. Pakistan has passed a resolution in the National Assembly, condemning the CAA as discriminatory. Imran Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, declared that the CAA would create fear among Muslims in India, and they will leave in droves.

What has puzzled India is Bangladesh telecom regulatory authority’s order to shut down services along the Indian border. The fact is that there has always been a flow of illegal migrants into India from Bangladesh, as India has been a safe sanctuary for them. Most of the Bengali-speaking Hindus and Muslims who have settled in Assam over the past decades are from Bangladesh. The infamous 1983 Nellie massacre in Assam, following the ‘Bongali Khedao’ or ‘Drive Out the Bengalis’ agitation, led to the killing of over 2,000 illegal Bangladeshi Muslim migrants. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state of Assam contains 1.9 crore names of unlawful migrants, mostly from Bangladesh.

Why is Bangladesh Scared?

The Citizen Amendment Act has raised the spectre of a mass exodus of illegal Bangladeshis back to their homeland, Bangladesh. According to political observers, instances of reverse migration of hundreds of Bangladeshis who were arrested after the crossing of the border into Bangladesh have sent alarm bells ringing in the political corridors of Bangladesh. Reportedly, these people confessed that they are ‘Bangladeshi Muslims’ and have returned home because they no longer see any hope of getting Indian citizenship after the CAA.

According to political analysts, Bangladesh is also scared of  1983, Assam type violence due to reverse migration on account of the CAA. The CAA can encourage the Islamists and anti-Indian lobbies in Bangladesh to target the Hindu minority. The political leaders fear that Islamist propagandists may paint India as anti-Muslim; this may become a tool to target Hindus.

Reports of large detention centers being built in Assam have unnerved Muslim migrants who see no hope of citizenship after the CAA. Bangladesh is already finding it difficult to cope with the 4 lakh plus Rohingya Muslims who fled from Myanmar. Bangladesh is now concerned over the possibility of a larger influx of Bangladeshi Muslims, who are illegal migrants in India. India has been on good terms with Bangladesh in recent years. So now, the million-dollar question is how the Indian government will deal with lakhs of illegal, stateless Muslim migrants at the same time keep Bangladesh and neighboring Muslim nations happy.

L'articolo Bangladesh Fears Muslim Influx After Indian Citizenship Bill proviene da InsideOver.

Her face once inspired hope in the downtrodden – but as Aung San Suu Kyi’s drawn features appeared on screen, the refugee camp erupted in fury. “Liar! Liar! Shame!” rose up the cries from the squalid, Bangladeshi settlement. Half a world away, the protesters’ compatriots—assembled outside the UN’s highest court in the Hague—echoed the message with vigor. 

Suu Kyi: What Genocide?

Myanmar’s leader won’t have heard them, nor the hundreds of her supporters also on the street. With laser-like focus, the one-time champion of democracy systematically denied charges of genocide against the Rohingya people being brought against her nation in the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ). Myanmar’s bloody suppression of its Muslim minority was an internal security matter, she maintained—but few, it seems, are convinced.   

Background On Myanmar’s Campaign Against The Rohingya

It was, in 2017, the world’s fastest growing refugee crisis. Upwards of 700,000 people forced from their homes amid a military campaign of systemic destruction and murder. Most ended up in neighboring Bangladesh’s engorged and under-resourced refugee camps. It was a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing,” the UN later concluded—one that had occurred on Aung San Suu Kyi’s watch. Horrified by the apparent act of genocide, which is said to be unfolding still, Gambia has brought World Court charges against the southeast Asian state.  

Suu Kyi Defends Myanmar Army’s Actions: Lawful Counter-Terror Operation

Electing to represent her nation in person, Suu Kyi is the first national leader to answer a charge of genocide while the crime is allegedly ongoing. Her defence has been unwavering. Yes, hundreds of villages have been destroyed, and yes, disproportionate force may at times have been used, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate conceded, but Suu Kyi has maintained throughout the proceedings that the army’s operation was a lawful counter-terror operation.

Regarding the allegations of systematic sexual violence and rape as a tactic of war, detailed in three agonizing hours of witness testimony, Suu Kyi remained silent. Instead, she used her time to attack the ICJ’s supposed overreach, assailing its judges for meddling in what she claimed is an internal security affair.

Reaction To Suu Kyi’s Defense Against The Charges

Suu Kyi’s spirited defense of the military was well received back home; but for the opposing side, it’s a desperate race against time. Gambia’s legal team are not at this stage seeking official recognition of the genocide, but rather the imposition of “provisional measures” to protect Myanmar’s remaining Rohingya community.

Roughly half a million Rohingya individuals still reside in the country’s westerly Rakhine State. Where once their ancestral villages stood, the court heard that new security bases and government offices have been built. It is a cynical effort to destroy evidence of mass murder, said the Gambian lawyers, who worry the military’s genocidal intentions may actually have strengthened in recent months.   

Suu Kyi disputes this charge, claiming that Myanmar’s generals remain firmly under her control. Her government “actively investigates, prosecutes and punishes soldiers and officers that are accused of wrongdoing,” she told the court, pointing to the conviction of seven servicemen in 2017. The group had massacred ten Rohingya villagers, a crime exposed by two Reuters reporters. For their reporting of the killing, the journalists languished in jail for more than 16 months, significantly longer than the murderous soldiers, who were released only one year into their 10-year sentences. The affair is indicative of Myanmar’s inability to self-police, critics argue.      

“Aung San Suu Kyi says Myanmar is investigating its own crimes… Once atrocities are systematically committed as policy, you lose the credibility to investigate them yourself,” said Mark Kersten of the Wayamo Foundation, an international justice group. “We’d never accept the Nazis investigating the Holocaust, or Milosevic’s Serbs investigating Srebrenica.”

Proving Genocide And Holding Myanmar Responsible

In the cases of the Holocaust and other horrors, genocide’s high benchmark—acting with the “intent to destroy in whole or in part” a community—was proven. With the weight of evidence at their disposal, Gambia’s legal team will be hopeful of a similar verdict against Myanmar. But even if Myanmar is eventually found guilty, the ICJ has no way of enforcing its decisions. Neither the country’s civilian leader nor its military commanders would necessarily be arrested or put on trial.

Foreign sanctions would, however, be a likely consequence—as would severe reputational damage. However, for those suffering in ramshackle Bangladeshi camps or encircled Rakhine homesteads, that means very little. Myanmar’s much-feted leader must be made to call off the dogs, critics say. But whether she will—or even can—is far from clear.  

L'articolo Aung San Suu Kyi Denies Myanmar’s Alleged Rohingya Genocide proviene da InsideOver.

In his sixth visit since assuming office less than two years ago, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Riyadh last week to meet with the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to “discuss recent developments in the regional context.”

The meeting comes on the heels of the upcoming Kuala Lumpur Summit – an initiative led by the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad. The summit seeks to rival the almost-defunct Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and aims to bring together the leaders of Indonesia, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan and Malaysia and counter the anti-Islam narrative around the world.

Mahathir, while announcing the summit claimed to create a united Islamic forum to bring the plight of Muslims especially Kashmiris, Uighurs and the Rohingyas to the forefront and condemn the leaders responsible for these atrocities.

The summit, scheduled between Dec 18-21, plans to build a parallel leadership forum in the Islamic world minus the Saudi Arabia and the UAE to fill the leadership vacuum, has laid bare the simmering rift within the Islamic countries.

The attendees, especially Qatar, Iran and Turkey have publicly criticized Saudi Arabia for its indifference towards the plight of Muslims across the world. Their presence at the summit has irked the leadership of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and Pakistan has caught itself in the crosshairs.

Reports claim that MBS has raised his displeasure over PM Khan’s acceptance to attend the summit. PM Khan, in a bid to persuade MBS, sent his Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to Riyadh. But Qureshi failed to convince the Saudi prince. After which, Khan himself flew to Riyadh on Saturday to meet the Crown Prince where he discussed the situation.

But media reports surrounding the meeting suggest that the Saudi leadership communicated their displeasure to Khan’s over his decision to participate in the meeting.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may be allies but the two are not equal. Pakistan does not have the diplomatic bravado to challenge Saudi Arabia as it has borrowed more than $6 billion from the country and has currently availed deferred oil purchase facility as well. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has also made investments into the country’s religious institutions and holds a certain degree of sway over Pakistan’s religious affairs.

But Pakistan under Imran Khan has become increasingly assertive in its foreign policy ambitions and has tried to maintain a degree of neutrality vis-a-vis Iran and Saudi Arabia. Khan recently visited both Tehran and Riyadh to establish a line of communication between the two arch-rivals who were on a brink of an all-out war.

But as Khan was meeting with Crown Prince MbS, Pakistan’s Army Chief was in Abu Dhabi to meet UAE’s Crown Prince Sheikh Zayed. The official announcement following the meeting did not mention the summit but sources privy to the information have claimed that the chief was there to convince the prince who has also shown his displeasure at the Kuala Lumpur initiative.

Although an official statement has not been released yet, certain Pakistani media outlets have claimed that Khan has also decided to abstain from participating in the moot.

The visit by both Khan and Bajwa amplified the degree of Saudi Arabia’s influence on Islamabad in its foreign policy ambitions, but more importantly, it showed Pakistan’s handicapped ability to pursue foreign relations given its reliance on the UAE and Saudi Arabia for financial needs.

L'articolo PM Khan’s Handicapped Foreign Policy Ambitions proviene da InsideOver.