Fight Flight Freeze

“Tragic” doesn’t come close to describing the nationalist decisions made these past two weeks by the Myanmar and U.S. governments about who gets to remain in their countries. Dreamers and Rohingya can’t be compared perfectly, I know. Yet both countries will be better off if they can sort out their citizenship rights issues and prevent future episodes of flushing out minority groups.

Growing up in America I recall glowing references to the “melting pot,” or the “land of opportunity.” We were taught that it’s good to embrace otherness, and that everyone has an equal chance to prosper. Later, I began to understand that the U.S. melting pot might in fact be more of a salad bowl, and that the meritocracy doesn’t always work.

Myanmar prefers separate plates rather than pots or bowls. Conformity is valued more than variety—a place for everyone, and everyone in their place. Thus conflicts over identity easily flare here, especially when you throw onto the fire other tinder such as land, history, and trafficking. Recent news reports from Rakhine State, with titles like “Trail of Suffering,” describe village burnings and uncommon levels of both fight and flight.

This new chapter in the old strife between several communities appears to contain a familiar theme: the excesses committed by both minority and majority seem especially lopsided. One armed contingent attacks another security force, using makeshift weapons, causing X number of deaths. “Revenge” is then taken by a much larger military unit, causing many times X number of deaths. Of course none of the excesses is acceptable, and comparing them may not be useful. In any case, these numbers can’t be confirmed precisely.

What seems certain is the flight by Y number of people who don’t want to be caught in the crossfire. That number has climbed steadily since August 25th, when a newish group claiming to represent Rohingya interests struck Myanmar government outposts close to the Bangladesh border. Since then the Myanmar military has hit back, and the number of people crossing that border has averaged over 19,000 people per day. We can be reasonably certain about this count, as it is provided by international humanitarian sources who are attempting to furnish emergency relief to those displaced people.

Another thing we can be certain about is that issues connected to living in a plural society truly expose the worst in people here. Comment forums on internet websites and following facebook posts feature tirades and broadsides and abuse rivaling anything you might hear at, say, a rally in Charlottesville.

Nobody must manage such hostilities more than Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s elected leader and so-called counselor. On diversity issues she has been unable to lead and unwilling to counsel, saying most recently that such issues are dogged by “misinformation.” No doubt she feels the pressure that all politicians feel to say what will please voters, who in this country are mostly biased against Rohingya. To a lesser degree she may also want to respond to the mostly international voices who say her refusal to recognize the Rohingya cause is grounds for the overturning of her Nobel Peace Prize. In the end, she can neither ignore nor overrule the decisions of Myanmar’s military leaders. She appears paralyzed.

Sure, she’s under enormous stress, so her freeze response may be understandable. But it’s hardly the quality that can move Myanmar forward. Silence suggests a lack of hope—precisely the quality on which she was elected. Silence from Aung San Suu Kyi is a double shame, because she has a ready-made roadmap for next steps in Rakhine State. The Advisory Commission on Rakhine State Report’s recommendations, issued the day before the most recent troubles began, provide her with a plan, legitimacy, and balance. When hardliners last year questioned the need for the commission, Parliament voted a green light for it.

In a time dominated by mobs and tweets and post-truth, solutions and peacemakers are thin on the ground. Aung San Suu Kyi holds a few cards that nobody else in the country can claim. She could start by finding her own freedom from fear and acknowledging that violence has never solved Rakhine’s State’s problems. From there, she could lead a push for, as the Rakhine Commission puts it, “an acceleration of the citizenship verification process in line with the 1982 Citizenship Law.” Perhaps such an effort here would even inspire American political leaders as they debate a Dreamer Law in hopes of harnessing the power and benefits of the nation’s mosaic.