Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Comey Testifies in Front of the Senate

This morning at 10, the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing of former FBI Director James Comey began. The hearing is intended to address President Donald Trump’s interactions with Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 elections. Yesterday, Comey’s prepared testimony was released and many people said the content was troubling. It described, among other things, the president’s request for loyalty during a private dinner with Comey–followed by an “awkward silence” and a staring contest. Comey then spoke to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and asked to not be left alone with the president again, as the request made him uneasy.

At the entrance to the Comey hearing room, one of the cops tells me he’s never seen anything like this pic.twitter.com/GpZx8kJ3oZ

— Adam Khan (@Khanoisseur) June 8, 2017

This is a pretty big deal, so a lot of bars opened early to let people watch the hearing live. A D.C. bar served discounted Russian vodka with “FBI sandwiches” and wrote on Facebook, “Grab your friends, grab a drink and let’s COVFEFE!”

Only in DC would a restaurant/bar play the Comey Hearing live and feature themed food and drinks. If you haven’t heard it’s at Shaw’s Tavern pic.twitter.com/iIJzxUYsKN

— Samantha-Jo Roth (@SamanthaJoRoth) June 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In the same city where 20,000 tons of explosives rained down from American planes during Christmas 1972–killing more than 1,000 civilians–President Barack Obama stood in front of giant American and Vietnamese flags on Monday to announce the severing of a Cold War-era arms embargo between the U.S. and Vietnam. This is Obama’s first visit to the country, and the first leg of a trip in the Pacific.

At a news conference in Hanoi–the communist country’s northern capital on the banks of the Red River–Obama continued his pattern of deepening ties with longstanding U.S. adversaries, and of thawing relations with largely isolated communist regimes such as Cuba and Myanmar.

“The United States is fully lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for some 50 years,” Obama said to a gaggle of Vietnamese and foreign press as he insisted the ban had nothing to do with China. “It was based on our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process of moving toward normalization with Vietnam.”

Critics of the announcement however, namely human rights organizations that view Vietnam as a brutal regime with a horrendous human rights record, contend the move will cede leverage in negotiating with the Vietnamese to reel back their abuses: including jailing journalists, beating dissidents, and maintaining over 100 known political prisoners (Human Rights Watch counts 104, though it acknowledges there are most likely many more).

“The only people who would be happy [with the lifting of the ban] is the Vietnamese government, because [Obama] didn’t address human rights except in a boiler plate paragraph with no names, places or dates, no people, no sense of urgency,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) in an interview with Law Street.

According to Adams, the speech occurred on a day that served as a microcosm of Vietnam’s concerning behavior: parliamentary elections (“a rubber stamp affair,” Adams called them) were held as dissidents were rounded up. Obama did not address either in his announcement.

The full lifting of the embargo–which was partially lifted in 2014–is the final step in normalizing relations with the Southeast Asian nation, and in removing a “lingering vestige of the Cold War,” said Obama. Earlier in the trip, Obama made other moves to strengthen ties between his government and that of Tran Dai Quang, Vietnam’s president. Visa restrictions for travelers to either country will be eased, the Peace Corps will station volunteers in the country to teach English, and both Obama and Quang reiterated their commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, which is currently stalled in Congress and has failed to obtain the concrete support of any of the three remaining presidential nominees.

Obama’s stated goal in easing arms sales to Vietnam is to allow the country to defend itself amid increasingly volatile times in the region. Its powerful neighbor to the north–China–has shown signs of aggression in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea, where Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines jostle over who has the right to the Spratly Islands. In recent months, China has intensified its naval force in the region and has been hard at work in building an island in the hopes of legitimizing its claim.

Disputes over territory in the South China Sea has led to increased tension between China and much of Southeast Asia. Image courtesy of [deedavee easyflow via Flickr]

Though China is publicly supportive of the dissolution of the half century old embargo (officials reportedly hope it will lead to “normal and friendly” relations), a commentary published in the state-run Xinhua News Agency on Sunday hinted at what is perhaps its unofficial, internal view of U.S.-Vietnam relations.

“As a habitual wave-maker in the Asia-Pacific, the United States has shown no restraint in meddling in regional situation, which is evidenced by its relentless moves to disturb peace in the South China Sea,” wrote Xinhua contributor Sun Ding. On the potential embargo lift, which at the time of publishing had not been announced: “The calculating move will serve only Washington’s own strategic purposes as the United States seeks a rebalance in the Asia-Pacific.”

The White House and Vietnam’s government released a joint statement Monday afternoon in regards to the partnership between the two countries, with a section highlighting “promoting human rights and legal reform”:

The United States welcomed Vietnam’s ongoing efforts in improving its legal system and undertaking legal reform in order to better guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone in accordance with the 2013 Constitution.

But Adams isn’t convinced that Vietnam is doing anything concrete in regards to safeguarding human rights. Even if the Vietnamese government enacts law changes, it does so to benefit those in power, he said, not for the good of the people. He’s seen mixed reactions from the blogosphere in Vietnam–human rights organizations’ window into the country because they are not allowed on the ground–in regards to Obama’s speech.

Nationalist fervor is gripping Vietnam at the moment, Adams said, and so the people who are focused on the alleged threat from China are happy the embargo was lifted, and progressive liberals in the country are happy with the move as well. Others, he said, think it should have been lifted but with concessions. And while he noted this episode as being entirely about the perceived threat from China, Adams was disappointed in what he saw as a blown opportunity.

“When you have leverage, to just throw it away is unacceptable,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Despite Human Rights Disagreements, Obama Lifts Arms Embargo with Vietnam appeared first on Law Street.

In 1990, the nation now known as Myanmar (renamed from Burma in 1989) held its first election since the 1962 coup that brought a repressive military junta to power. The elections were swept by the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi. But the power transition from military to civilian rule never came and by the end of 1990 many of the major figures in the NLD, including Suu Kyi, were arrested.

In 2008, a new constitution was drafted and a transition plan established in an attempt to convert Myanmar from military rule to democracy. The country held its first elections under the new constitution in 2010, which brought Thein Sein to the seat of the presidency. On November 8, 2015, general elections were once again held and the NLD and Suu Kyi were once again in the national spotlight. But will anything actually change? Read on to learn about the elections and the current situation in Myanmar.

Military Rule

Following its independence from the British Empire, Myanmar attempted to cultivate a bicameral, multiparty democracy. Elections were characterized by infighting among the political parties and general instability. In 1958, Army Chief of Staff Ne Win was tasked with establishing a caretaker government to restore order.

In 1962, Ne Win launched a coup, declaring Burma was unfit for parliamentary democracy. The constitution was suspended and the legislature was dissolved. From that point, the army established a strong grip on the government of Myanmar, a grip it still holds today. Many private areas were brought under government control, and the Burmese Way to Socialism was adopted. This new philosophy essentially fused the Marxist practices of central planning with traditional Buddhist and Nationalistic sensibilities. Under the new ideology, Myanmar became one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Ne Win would effectively rule the Union of Burma through various roles–Prime Minister, President, and head of the ruling Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP)–until 1988.

After the coup, the government engaged in the brutal repression of opposition and free speech. Student protests frequently occurred but were crushed by the military. A notable protest occurred in December 1974 at the funeral of U Thant, the country’s former permanent representative to the United Nations who later became the U.N. Secretary-General. The unrest culminated in the 8888 Uprising, which started on August 8, 1988. That year, Ne Win enacted a series of currency denominations, effectively eliminating many people’s life-savings. The uprising was led by university students who marched on the capital city of Rangoon. During multiple days of violence between students and security forces, an estimated 3,000 people, mostly protesters, were killed. The protests eventually led Ne Win to resign and in 1990 the country held elections, but despite that momentary progress the military maintained its control over the country.

The 1990 Election

In 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Myanmar from the United Kingdom. Heavily influenced by the movements of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, she helped orchestrate the anti-government rallies stressing nonviolent protest. For her roles in the protests, she would spend 15 years between 1989 and 2010 under some form of incarceration.

When the military agreed to hold open elections in 1990, Suu Kyi mobilized the National League for Democracy. The NLD swept the election claiming a projected 80 percent of available seats despite numerous efforts from the government to hamstring the opposition parties. The limitations included a ban on campaign rallies and strict rules for the media that the opposition groups could distribute to voters.

Despite the overwhelming victory of the NLD in 1990, the elections were never honored by the military government. According to Human Rights Watch,

Burma’s military government refused to recognize the result of the 1990 elections and claimed that the vote was only to form an assembly to draft a new constitution, not for a parliament. In the ensuing months, the military government arrested and imprisoned dozens of opposition parliamentarians, while scores fled Burma to seek refuge abroad.

The 1990 elections concluded with a series of arrests of multiple leaders of the opposition parties, including Suu Kyi. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar.

The 2008 Constitution and 2011 Transition

In 2008, the military government announced a renewed effort to bring democracy to Myanmar and open the country to the rest of the world. Since the 1962 coup, most western nations refused to trade with Myanmar, forcing the country into an unwilling dependence on China for foreign trade. In 2008, a cyclone struck Myanmar and triggered one of the worst natural disasters in the country’s history. Many argued that this event led the military government to realize the need to be a part of the larger international community.

In 2008, a new constitution was drafted, creating a bicameral elected legislature. However, the government gave itself a powerful position with the constitution. The military party was guaranteed 25 percent of the seats in both houses of the legislature (the Hluttaw). Additionally, in order for any change to the constitution to be ratified, more than 75 percent of all members of the Hluttaw must approve the change. This leaves the military with effective veto power on any proposed change to the constitution.

Elections were once again scheduled, but the NLD boycotted the elections due to a now-infamous provision in the constitution, article 59 F. Regarding limitations on who can hold the office of president, the article states that the president:

Shall he himself, one of the parents, the spouse, one of the legitimate children or their spouses not owe allegiance to a foreign power, not be subject of a foreign power or citizen of a foreign country. They shall not be persons entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges of a subject of a foreign government or citizen of a foreign country.

This effectively disqualified Suu Kyi from contention for the office of president because her husband was a British national and her children possess British passports.

The 2010 elections were subject to similar restrictions placed on the 1990 elections, much to the chagrin of independent observers. The Union Election Commission evaluated the opposition parties during the registration process and blocked several from legally running. Numerous ethnic minority groups, particularly Muslims, were disenfranchised and remain to this day ineligible to vote. Amidst rampant fraud and violence, voter turnout was low but the results were honored by the military. In 2011, Thein Sein came to power as president. In 2012, by-elections were held and the NLD participated, claiming most of the available seats, one of which was claimed by Suu Kyi herself.

The 2015 Election

Despite criticism of the constitution, which many claim contains undemocratic articles (primarily article 59 F), the government insisted that the constitution will remain in place. For the first time since 1990, the NLD participated in the general election and dominated the polls, gaining an outright majority in both houses of the Hluttaw. The government has promised a smooth transition of power and the NLD will choose next president of Myanmar. Although she is ineligible for the position, most believe that Suu Kyi will lead from parliament with the president serving as a proxy.

The major losers in the election, aside from the military party, were the ethnic opposition groups and their Mon National Party. Largely popular in the ethnic, fringe villages, the party could not compete with larger population centers that favor the NLD while multiple MNP candidates split the vote. Voter disenfranchisement was also a major factor in several regions that were key for the MNP.

Expectations

The primary question after this election is who will become the next president of Myanmar. However, the answer to this question isn’t overly important as whoever is chosen by the Hluttaw will likely just serve as Suu Kyi’s proxy. To select a president, each of the Hluttaw houses and the military will nominate a candidate. The candidates will then be voted on in a joint session of the legislature with the two losers serving as vice-presidents.

At the outset, it looked as if Speaker of the Hluttaw U Shwe Mann was the clear favorite for the office of president. Although he is a member of the military faction, Suu Kyi may support his candidacy in exchange for constitutional reform. However, Shwe Mann has since lost favor with the military, and was removed as head of the party in an August “soft-coup.” At present, there are numerous contenders for the office, though it is unclear which direction Suu Kyi and the NLD will go. Any alliance with the military party will likely be for the sole purpose of reforming the constitution.

Current president Thein Sein, who could still garner support for another term, has promised a smooth transition at a gathering of political parties in the week following the election. Both the NLD and the current ruling party are expected to hold reconciliation talks to help bring about the smooth transfer of power and begin a reform process.

Conclusion

The NLD’s convincing victory gives Suu Kyi a mandate to seek the constitutional and democratic change she has spent the last 27 years campaigning for. Despite being unable to claim the office of president for herself, she is expected to run the country by proxy from the Hluttaw. However, any change will likely be slow and gradual and a smooth transition remains difficult in light of the country’s history. The military also retains effective veto power to any proposed change in the constitution.

Myanmar still faces a variety of problems regarding its treatment of ethnic minorities, widespread impoverishment, and persistent electoral issues. While the government has promised a transition, similar promises were made in 1990 and later reneged. Time will tell if 2015 and 2016 will be any different.

Resources

Primary

Myanmar: Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar

Additional

BBC: Myanmar’s 2015 General Election Explained

BBC: Profile: Aung San Suu Kyi

CNN: November Date set for Landmark Myanmar Elections: What’s at stake?

Al Jazeera: Myanmar Promised ‘Smooth and Stable’ Transition

The Irrawaddy: Mon Parties Count their Losses after NLD Rout

The New Yorker: Can Myanmar’s New Government Control its Military?

The Huffington Post: Burma’s 8888: A Movement that Lives On

James F. Guyot: Myanmar in 1990: The Unconsummated Election

Oxford Burma Alliance: The Ne Win Years: 1962-1988

Burma Fund UN Office: Burma’s 2010 Elections: A Comprehensive Report

PBS NewsHour: Inside the Charge for Change Toward Democracy in Myanmar

Journeyman Pictures: Road to Democracy – Myanmar’s Election Struggle

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated correct U Thant’s history. Thant served as Burma’s permanent representative to the United Nations and later the U.N. Secretary-General. He was not the country’s prime minister.

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Advancement or Regression? The 2015 Elections in Myanmar appeared first on Law Street.

Innovation is only imagined in the face of a problem without a solution. Take the electric car, for example. An electric car could save drivers gas money–you get Tesla. Let’s create an app that brings a car to your location on demand–you get Uber.

That’s what tech startups do: they brainstorm new innovations to help overcome challenges. Sometimes they can find homes in surprising places. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar is becoming a new and fast-growing land for tech startups.

After nearly 50 years under a military junta, Myanmar transitioned to a civilian-led government in 2011. Under President Thein Sein, the government initiated a series of political and economic reforms leading to the opening of the long-isolated country. Reforms included releasing political prisoners, reaching preliminary peace agreements with major armed ethnic groups,  providing better protections for basic human rights, and gradually reducing restrictions on the press.

Out of all Southeast Asian countries, why Myanmar?

After such a long isolation, things are changing very quickly. When the military junta was ruling the country in the early 2000s, a SIM card could cost $2,000; today it costs $1.50. The government took a $105 million loan from Japan in order to upgrade the local telecommunication infrastructure, and it is expected that nearly everyone will be carrying smartphones and tablets by the end of 2015. There is room for competition and new products, and the tech community recognizes that.

One of the parties helping to shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem is Sydney-based Pollenizer.

Pollenizer’s “Startup Science” is a framework designed to build incubation and acceleration programs that help entrepreneurs and big companies all over the world get started with high-growth, tech-powered businesses. Part of its support is providing services such as management training or office space.

Here are some of the latest featured developments in Myanmar:

• Carmudi, the Carmax of Myanmar: an online vehicle marketplace.
• Hush, a mobile app that allows you to post anonymous messages based on location. You are then able to view what others have posted while in the same location.
• Harmoneat, Myanmar’s first food truck. Harmoneat runs cooking classes and other tourist services to finance the operations of a community food truck.
• Nexy Keyboard, “the first iOS8 keyboard in Myanmar” that allows users to type in “Myanglish.”
• SmartSales, a point-of-sale (POS) system for restaurants that runs on batter power to overcome power outages.
• Fyre, web-based software that helps businesses set up online stores and mobile apps without needing any programming knowledge.

With celebrity entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and record-breaking valuations leading the headlines, it’s easy to forget the markets that are at the beginning of their tech revolutions and ready for explosion. The Myanmar market is very big as there are many places people still use pen and paper to conduct business. This new frontier for entrepreneurs has an exciting future.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Myanmar the Next Big Destination for Startups? appeared first on Law Street.

In a country where even the name is a contentious issue, Burma, or Myanmar as it has more recently been known, is home once again to a brewing conflict. There are many competing sides in this struggle, including the much-criticized government, the victimized Muslim population, and Buddhist monks who are advocating a nationalist message. The violence has already led to mass displacement, reprisal attacks and questions about Myanmar and its democratic reforms. A shaky government is gearing up for the 2015 elections, but the outcome of this conflict is anything but certain.  Read on to learn about the history of Myanmar, the current conflict, and the prognosis.

What is Myanmar?

Myanmar, or Burma as it was known prior to 1989, is a country located in Southeast Asia. Its population of approximately 55 million people is comprised primarily of Burmese Buddhists, but there are also sizable minority groups residing there as well. For most of its history, Myanmar was home to independent Burmese kingdoms, until it was conquered and made a British colony from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries.

In 1937, Myanmar was finally separated from the British colony of India, and in 1948 gained full independence; however, independence did not exactly open the country to opportunity. Instead, for the next 60 or so years it was ruled by one military dictatorship after another. Finally, in 2011, a new quasi-civilian government was elected under the leadership of a man named Thein Sein and long-awaited reforms began. These reforms included releasing long-held political prisoners, agreeing to peace with minority groups, and opening up the press and the rest of society. The video below provides a description of the country’s road from independence to the present.

While the country stills struggles with violence and implementing reforms, its name also remains something of a quagmire. Although it officially changed the name from Burma to Myanmar following a brutal government crackdown in 1989, the world has been slow to accept it. The United States for example, while hopeful of Myanmar’s democratic aspirations, still officially uses the name Burma so as not to appear to sanction human rights violations there; however, during a historic visit in 2012, President Obama did refer to the nation as Myanmar instead of Burma. For the duration of this article, I will use Myanmar so as to avoid confusion.

A History of Conflict

Long before the invasion of colonizing British, Myanmar was home to extensive conflict. Much of the conflict was centered in a region called Rakhine, inhabited by the Rakhine people. The region has been repeatedly invaded by multiple forces. One of those forces is the minority Rohingya Muslim population, who clashed with the Buddhist Rakhine people. Rakhine has also been invaded by the Buddhist Burmese, who they are ethnically different from, mostly for political and historical reasons. Rakhine is a powder keg region that has consistently been a center of conflict in Myanmar.

There have also consistently been tensions between the Rohingya Muslims and the Buddhists (both Burmese and Rakhine). Some of it may stem from WWII, when Rohingya Muslims remained loyal to the British, while the Buddhists supported Japan in hopes of achieving independence. This was compounded after WWII when the Rohingya attempted to rise up and carve out an area of autonomy for themselves and were initially successful; however, over time they were defeated and have since been politically oppressed.

The Current Conflict

Rohingya Muslims

The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group in western Myanmar. The group are victims of an official government policy that has been called ethnic cleansing by some; their people are segregated into isolated camps and villages where basic services are not available. The situation is bad enough that the Rohingya are considered some of the world’s most persecuted people by the United Nations. In a recent national census the group was not even counted among the country’s citizens. In fact, a 1982 law forbids the Rohingya from becoming citizens of the country. The group is discriminated against both because of its religion and also its traditionally darker complexion.

The Rohingya originated from a part of what was once a region called Bengal and is now part of Bangladesh. While the Rakhine are the overall majority in the region, in the areas bordering Bangladesh, the Rohingya are actually the majority. It is still unclear exactly how the group came to the region, with some saying they have existed there for hundreds of years and others claiming they are relative newcomers from just this past century. Either way, the Rohingya are viewed with great hostility in Myanmar. This distinction also excludes them from indigenous status within the country’s constitution.

Rakhine Buddhists

The other group is the Rakhine Buddhist nationalists. Somewhat surprisingly, many of those involved in the conflict are also Buddhist monks. This movement has become known as the 969 movement.

The number 969 is a reference to Buddha and some of his teachings. The figurehead of this movement is Ashin Wirathu, who has risen to fame by delivering fierce speeches that include unsubstantiated claims about Muslims, calls to boycott Muslim businesses, and demands for laws that prevent interfaith marriage.

Nevertheless, while the Rakhine are the majority in the region, they are yet another minority within it. Unlike the Rohingya, who are generally viewed as newcomers, the Rakhine are a much older group there. In fact, they once had their own empire in what is now Bangladesh and Myanmar, before they were invaded by the Burmese. To the Rakhine and much of the rest of the population, the Rohingya therefore are an illegal immigrant group and are treated as such.

The Flashpoint

The current conflict was set off by the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman by a Muslim man in May 2012. This led to a wave of violence perpetrated primarily against Rohingya by Buddhist nationalists. A second wave of attacks took place that October. These were different from the first in two ways: first they were much more coordinated; second they were directed at Muslims in general and not just the Rohingya.

Following the attacks, the government took two steps. First it created an interfaith commission to provide a report on exactly what had led to the violence. While portions of the report were valuable, other parts that called for Rohingya family planning cast doubt on its goals. Second, as the focus of attacks grew from the Rohingya to Muslims in general, the government made an effort to protect Muslim populations by sending in police; however, far from being useful, police sometimes stood by or even engaged in violence against Muslims along with Buddhist nationalist crowds. The government also sent the army into areas and they have proven more effective because they have less Rakhine Buddhists among their ranks.

This conflict has led to terrible living conditions for the Rohingya, with many being forced to flee into Bangladesh where they are living in refugee camps. It has also led to a mass exodus as Muslim citizens of Myanmar seek safety in other countries. It has further led to several reprisal bombings and attacks on Buddhist holy sites and Myanmar government offices by Muslims who claim to be acting on behalf of the Rohingya. Domestically, it has increased scrutiny on a government seemingly unable to stop the violence. It has also opened the door to leadership for a the popular opposition candidate named Aung San Suu Kyi. The video below explains the conflict in depth.

The Future For Myanmar

Going forward, three groups of people are likely to have the biggest impact, not only on this conflict but on the country as a whole. These are the Myanmar government, politician Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu

Myanmar Government

Aside from the Rakhine debacle, the government has several other things to worry about. According to international watchdog organization Human Rights Watch, the government has been backsliding on many of the promised reforms from 2011, namely granting freedom to the media. On top of this is the increasingly evident control still held by the military, which threatens to make the widely anticipated elections later this year into a farce that do nothing to change the status quo.

Unfortunately for the people of Myanmar the status quo is not that pretty either. The economy is one of the least advanced in the world. It is also plagued by sanctions from places like the U.S. and E.U. These conditions are only exacerbated by fighting and the perception of ethnic cleansing, which prevents new investments and global support.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Aside from the government’s inability to maintain control, it is also feeling heat from Aung San Suu Kyi. Kyi has been arrested a number of times for denouncing the military regimes that have ruled Myanmar over the course of the last 30 years. Her efforts even garnered her a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Despite her record of denouncing injustice, however, she has declined to speak out in defense of the Rohingya. Many speculate this is her acting politically, as not only might she aspire to the presidency, but some of her strongest backers are the same Buddhist monks attacking Muslims. Furthermore it is unclear how much her voice could really alter things in Rakhine, especially considering the recent refusal by the government to allow her to run for the presidency. Still, it seems that as someone who champions civil rights she would stick up for a targeted minority even if it was unpopular, for the sake of country as a whole. Regardless of her relationship with the government, she is often viewed as a strong and respected voice in Myanmar. The video below chronicles Kyi and her viewpoints.

Ashin Wirathu

At the heart of Buddhist nationalist rhetoric is an embattled monk. Practically unknown before, he began to make a name for himself in 2001 during an earlier uprising against Muslims as part of the 969 group. His actions earned him 25 years in prison, but he was released as a political prisoner in 2010.

While he does not enjoy universal support, he has a large following because of his strong nationalist message and his denunciation of the Rohingya Muslims who are not liked by any segment of the population. Wirathu has also increased his audience by broadcasting on YouTube.

What gives him the most clout though is inaction. His fellow monks and the government have refused to discipline him. This has led some to believe he is preaching a message with which the government implicitly agrees. One of the few groups to oppose his teachings however, are certain women’s groups, which feel he labels the country with a bad image and is attempting to infringe on their rights by restricting who they can marry.

The following video details Wirathu and what he is preaching.

While these three actors are not the only ones at play in Myanmar, they are at the heart of the current conflict. They are also three agents who can affect change for good or for bad across the country itself.

Conclusion

The conflict in Myanmar threatens not just the Rohingya, but all minority groups. This is especially true in the wake of nationalist sermons preached by Buddhist Monks. Unfortunately not much is likely to be done about the situation. Although elections loom, the most promising candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi, is barred from participating. Unchecked and unresolved violence is only likely to simmer and burst out again; however, if the government can make real in-roads to reform and put on a legitimate election then the opportunity to rewrite Myanmar’s  story still exists.

 Resources

Primary

World Factbook: Myanmar

Additional

NPR: In Buddhist-Majority Myanmar, Muslim Minority Gets Pushed to the Margins

Washington Post: Why it’s Such a Big Deal That Obama Said ‘Myanmar’ Rather Than Burma

Al Jazeera America: Myanmar’s Buddhist Terrorism Problem

BBC: Why is There Communal Violence in Myanmar?

Human Rights Watch: Burma: Rights Heading in Wrong Direction

BBC: Myanmar Profile

BBC News: Ashin Wirathu: Myanmar and Its Vitriolic Monk

International Crisis Group: The Dark Side of Transition: Violence Against Muslims in Myanmar

Quartz: Aung San Suu Kyi Has Gone Silent on a Major Human-Rights Crisis in Myanmar

Guardian: Burma Rules Out Lifting Ban on Aung San Suu Kyi Presidency Before Election

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Myanmar or Burma: Conflict in a Country With Two Names appeared first on Law Street.