Immigrant rights advocates and others participate in rally and demonstration at the Federal Building in lower Manhattan against the Trump administration's policy that enables federal agents to take migrant children away from their parents at the border. Photo: AFP

By Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd)
Jul 26 2018 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

If there was any doubt about President Trump’s racist inclinations, it was fully removed by his pontification to the European leaders about, what he thinks, the negative consequences of immigration on Europe. Every time the US president opens his mouth on any subject, with the exception, perhaps, of real estate business, he betrays an abject ignorance on practically everything under the sun. And every time he does that I am reminded of what an illustrious predecessor of his, and he belonged to the Republican Party also, had said about the dangers of speaking out of turn, which was that, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”

It may be worth quoting President Trump’s comment about immigration and Europe, whose leadership he managed to rub the wrong way with his characteristic injudiciousness. In an interview with The Sun in June, the US president blamed immigration for the changing culture of Europe: “I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture.” And he said the same thing later at a news conference with the British PM, face to face, warning Europeans to be careful of the “changing culture” as a consequence of immigration. The reality is that, and that is acknowledged by all except the ultranationalists and rightists, the UK would not be what it is today without immigrants.

Trump’s utterances on culture is surprising on many counts, particularly the fact that such a thought was expressed by one who has both German and Scottish pedigree—being the grandson of a German, and the son of a Scottish immigrant to the US. And he has fathered a male progeny whose mother happens to be a first generation immigrant from Slovenia and has been a US citizen since only 2012. The American author James Jones had once advised the Americans to read their text books, and nobody more than the US president should take that to heart, particularly on history.

The issue of migration has been the topmost in the mind of President Trump. He has doubled down on immigrants from the very first day he took office, banning immigration from a selected list of Muslim countries. His cabinet ministers have used the scriptures, very selectively, to justify the policy of separating children from parents seeking asylum in the US from across its southern borders. That being the case, it may be worth looking at the scriptures to put the matter in a historical and scriptural context.

If migration is a crime, which Trump thinks it is, then the blame of the original sin must fall on the two who transgressed the Lord’s Command and thus endured forced migration. Ever since Adam and Eve were forced to migrate to the earth, human history has been the history of migration, of seeking newer lands for greener pastures and for following the command of the Lord, as did Abraham when he obeyed the order of his Lord to leave his home which was in present day Iraq. Immigration to a Christian kingdom, whose king Najashi knew his scriptures well, contributed to the survival of Islam at the very seminal stages of its existence. And the Islamic calendar commences with the immigration to Medina. Interestingly, all the revealed scriptures talk about protection of the immigrants.

Contrary to what Donald Trump thinks, migration has enriched and embellished languages and enhanced the capacity to adapt. But coming from one who is regrettably oblivious of how the American colonialists and their successors have decimated the American Red Indians, to the point where they are now penned in so called reservations, the fear expressed is not surprising. Neither is it new. Two hundred years ago Benjamin Franklin was worried about too many German immigrants “swamping America’s predominantly British culture.” Migration from Ireland was discouraged because they were looked down upon as “lazy and drunkards”— Poles, Italians, Russian Jews were the “new immigrants believed to be too different ever to assimilate into American life” at the beginning of 20th Century. Their contribution to America belies the misgivings.

Unfortunately, people like Mr Trump forget that the US is about migration and migrants. According to a US author, writing in 2002, “An authoritative 1997 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that immigration delivered a ‘significant positive gain’ to the U.S. economy. In testimony before Congress last year, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said, ‘I’ve always argued that this country has benefited immensely from the fact that we draw people from all over the world.’”

As for Europe, the notion that there are “original people” from whom the present day generation is originated has been proven wrong by a research report published in The Independent (UK) in February this year which says that immigrants have been “moving and mixing” across Europe since ancient times. The liberalists believe, in view of the spurt of refugees in Europe that Europe’s cultural, ethnic and religious diversity will increase in a transformative way in the years and decades to come. As for the Sub Continent, its cultural richness is the result of intermixing of people of various races creeds and ethnicities.

Modern day migration is a fact of life and the natural order of things. And the pull factors are just as relevant now as it was 1,50,000 years ago. Mr Trump, immigrants don’t change culture but they surely can win a country the World Cup. The French would swear to that.

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd) is, Associate Editor, The Daily Star.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

"As of now, in spite of our declared intention of not allowing in the Rohingyas, a large number of them have entered Bangladesh. The figures varies between 90,000 and 150,000." Photo: Anisur Rahman

By Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd)
Sep 6 2017 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

What we have today in the Rakhine State of Myanmar is a regime of ethnic cleansing. This latest round of pogrom of the Rohingyas is the result of the international community’s abject lack of action. Not only has the persecution of the Rohingyas not stopped, there has been a renewed vigour in the activity of the state agencies of Myanmar to ensure that the State of Rakhine is emptied of the Rohingyas.

And the rest of the world, apart from some episodic comments from the United Nations, has done nothing palpable to restrain the wanton persecution by the State of Myanmar of one of its ethnic minorities, while Bangladesh has had to bear the burden for the last three decades.

It is now clear that the formation of the Annan Commission by Su Kyi was merely a ploy. It is not difficult to see through her trick to show to the world that she was alive to the situation in Rakhine State and wanted a resolution of the problem. She had no intention of implementing any of the Commission’s recommendations. Apparently, Myanmar is working on the basis of a long-vision policy on Rohingya. Do we have a Rohingya or indeed a Myanmar policy?

My query is triggered by the way we have handled the Rohingya issue so far. At best we have been reactive, at worst we have botched it up being caught up in the mesh of our own ad hoc reaction to evolving situations in Rakhine State. This reconfirms the fundamental folly in our foreign policy, if there is one at all, vis a vis Myanmar. For all too long we have taken our only other neighbour for granted. Our energy and indeed preoccupation was fixated on the larger and the more overwhelming neighbour. It is time we seriously addressed the Rohingya issue and revisited the conduct of our policy with Myanmar. But first let us look our handling of the recent Rohingya crisis since 2012, and the likely consequences.

We have resolutely refused to accept officially the persecuted Rohingyas as refugees and have tried to prevent their entry into Bangladesh with little success. Where possible we have pushed them back, into the fire literally.

In 2012 the Rohingyas were technically not refugees according to the definitions of the international covenant on the matter. Since they did not then face any state persecution, a requirement to qualify as a refugee, as we were made to believe by official sources in Myanmar, they could not seek sanctuary in another country. We were told it was an ethnic matter of Myanmar. But commenting on the matter in 2012 we had warned that, “by refusing to accept the Rohingyas, we have given the wrong signal to Myanmar. It would leave the Rohingyas at the mercy of the majority and would literally have to choose between the devil and the deep sea.” That is exactly what the Rohingyas are faced with at this very moment.

Our handling of the Rohingya influx now is in sharp contrast to the way Bangladesh handled it in 1998. We had then allowed the nearly 300,000 refugees in and registered them. But we eventually made Myanmar take them back. Bangladesh must have done something right surely in its stance on the matter that had persuaded Myanmar to take back most of the Rohingya refugees. Why can’t that stance be replicated now?

The reality is that the Rohingyas are victims of state terrorism. And there are benefits of registering the Rohingyas even if we are unwilling to acknowledge them as refugees. For one thing we can have a tab on the exact number that have entered the country. As of now, in spite of our declared intention of not allowing in the Rohingyas, a large number of them have entered Bangladesh. The figures varies between 90,000 and 150,000. And most of them have settled well inside our territory and many have merged with the locals. Has our current stance helped in effectively addressing the matter?

And that is what begs the question. If registered as refugees the Rohingyas could be sequestered, their movement controlled, and provided relief under supervision of international aid agencies. And we could project an accurate picture of both the number and plight of the Rohingyas. Not having them registered provides Myanmar with a bargaining chip. It will refuse to accept the unregistered Rohingyas when the situation improves enough for the Rohingyas to go back on the grounds that they were not Rohingyas but locals and we were passing them off as Rohingyas to inflate the number of Rohingyas in Rakhine state.

Turning them back has another very dangerous potential, apart from sending them back to face more persecution. The younger ones among them would be provoked to join the ranks of the extremists, as some of them already have, to provide their own protection against the Myanmar forces.

The diplomatic front needs to be geared up more. The plight of the Rohingyas and the impact of that on Bangladesh is not very well known to the outside world. One is not aware of any coherent strategy to handle the Rohingya issue. There must be constant diplomatic effort in this regard and not episodic, waking up when there is an influx from Myanmar. The underlying issue—citizenship of Rohingyas—is a settled issue unsettled by Ne Win in 1982 with an extremely narrow chauvinistic motive. This something that our friends must be made to understand.

Regrettably, the role of Myanmar’s two close neighbours, have been disappointing. India and China are the countries who can and should bring to bear pressure on Myanmar. And that is the reason that has given the sense of impunity to Myanmar. So far India has been absolutely quiet on the issue, belying its much vaunted principled stand on human rights. Not surprisingly, the BJP’s ideologue sees the Rohingyas as bunch of terrorists. China, although expressing its willingness to help us in resolving the Rohingya issue, has, along with Russia, either blocked issuing of a statement by UN or vetoed draft UN Resolutions on Myanmar since 2007. What have we done to put our case to these three, who happen to be our very good friends too?

We understand that there is a National Task Force on Rohingya. We would like to think that the TF has formulated a policy to proceed on in handling the issue, if not then one should be made immediately.

The Rohingya issue is more complex, and impacts our national interest in more ways than we want to acknowledge. And we cannot play it by ears. A Myanmar policy, with a corollary Rohingya policy, must be devised immediately. Its consequences on the region and certainly on Bangladesh, if allowed to simmer is imponderable.

The writer is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh