Latest news with #Myanmar
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Scripted clip falsely presented as 'theft by Bangladeshi refugee'
"These Bangladeshi/Rohingyas live in huts near the railway tracks and indulge in acts of snatching and robbery," reads the Hindi-language caption of a Facebook video posted on July 7, 2025. The video -- viewed more than 20,000 times -- shows a man using a stick to knock a mobile phone out of the hands of a person filming from a fast-moving train. The man then grabs the phone, which has fallen near the tracks, and celebrates. The same video also surfaced in similar Facebook and X posts after India deported hundreds of people to Bangladesh without trial, drawing condemnation from activists and lawyers who called the expulsions illegal and based on ethnic profiling (archived link). New Delhi says the people deported are undocumented migrants. Bangladesh, largely encircled by land by India, has seen relations with New Delhi turn icy since a mass uprising in 2024 toppled Dhaka's government, a former friend of India. India has also been accused of forcibly deporting Muslim Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, with navy ships dropping them off the coast of the war-torn nation. The video circulating online, however, was scripted. A reverse image search on Google using keyframes from the falsely shared video led to a higher-quality Facebook reel posted on July 1 (archived link). The false posts use a horizontally flipped version of the video. "Do not keep your mobile phone and hands outside while travelling," reads its Bengali-language caption, alongside hashtags for "funny reels" and "comedy". The video was shared on the Facebook page of Md Rota Mia, a user based in Bangladesh who describes themselves as a comedian. The page also features similarly staged clips (archived link). AFP has previously debunked other posts misrepresenting scripted videos.
Arab News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Rohingya on the edge of a precipice
The international community is sleepwalking into a catastrophe. Over the past 18 months, Bangladesh has quietly absorbed more than 150,000 new Rohingya refugees fleeing escalating violence in Myanmar. This is in addition to the nearly 1 million already stranded in Cox's Bazar and other camps, making it the largest stateless refugee population in the world. Yet the response from the international community has not been one of renewed support — it has been a retreat. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, global aid for the Rohingya is drying up. Funding for food, shelter, healthcare and education has been slashed. The World Food Programme has been forced to reduce food rations to just $3 per person per month, barely enough to survive. With donors shifting priorities to domestic defense budgets and new conflicts elsewhere, the Rohingya are once again being relegated to the margins of international concern. This erosion of support comes at a time when the humanitarian burden on Bangladesh has never been greater. Dhaka, despite facing severe economic constraints of its own, continues to admit desperate Rohingya fleeing new waves of violence and persecution. The current interim government under Mohammed Yunus has rightly refused to turn away the persecuted, a morally commendable stance, but this cannot be sustained indefinitely. Without a massive injection of resources and strategic international commitment, the entire aid infrastructure in Bangladesh risks imminent collapse. If that happens, the consequences will be catastrophic — and not just for the Rohingya. The camps in Cox's Bazar and surrounding areas are at a tipping point. Remarkably, since their mass expulsion in 2017, the Rohingya have remained overwhelmingly peaceful and orderly, a testament to their patience, discipline and continued hope that the world will eventually come to their aid. But hope is now rapidly evaporating. We are likely to eventually see the first signs of systemic breakdown in the form of unrest and riots within the camps. With families unable to feed themselves, children out of school and no future on the horizon, desperation will inevitably turn into anger. There have already been whispers of growing criminal activity, informal weapons smuggling and rising tensions between different groups inside the overcrowded settlements. Once this tinderbox is lit, it will be very difficult to contain. More worrying still is the growing attraction of extremist ideologies. The Rohingya are a people who have endured ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the destruction of their villages and years of forced displacement. They have pleaded for justice, for rights and for basic human dignity. But if the world continues to ignore their plight, they may conclude that violence is the only language to which anyone listens. Global aid is drying up. Funding for food, shelter, healthcare and education has been slashed. Dr. Azeem Ibrahim It is no secret that transnational extremist groups have tried to recruit disillusioned Rohingya youths in the past. So far, the community has resisted. But when you strip away hope, abandon education and replace aid with hunger, you create the perfect breeding ground for radicalization. We are not far from the day when some Rohingya, with nothing left to lose, may choose a darker path. And the security implications for the wider region would be severe. This is precisely why the international abandonment of the Rohingya is not only immoral but also dangerously shortsighted. It is a basic principle of conflict prevention: where desperation festers unchecked, violence will follow. There is no justification for this dereliction of duty. The Rohingya situation is not a forgotten crisis. It has been at the center of international human rights conversations for nearly a decade. In 2022, the US formally recognized the genocide against the Rohingya. Numerous UN reports have documented the atrocities. Yet, in 2025, the global community appears content to let this entire people disappear into statelessness, starvation and silence. What should happen now is clear. First, the major donors must immediately reverse the funding cuts. The argument that resources are stretched due to Ukraine, Gaza or defense buildups cannot stand when the cost of feeding a Rohingya family for a month is a fraction of what is spent on a single missile system. This is not about capability; it is about political will. Second, a coordinated diplomatic strategy must be revived. The upcoming UN Rohingya Conference presents a final opportunity to galvanize action. The conference must do more than offer platitudes. It must commit to a multilateral repatriation framework with enforceable timelines and guarantees of safety and citizenship in Rakhine State. This includes directly engaging new actors in Myanmar such as the Arakan Army and the national unity government, both of which now control large areas of territory and have signaled at least a willingness to engage on Rohingya rights. Third, regional countries must step up. They have moral, religious and strategic stakes in this crisis. They should increase their contributions to humanitarian aid and push the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to take a stronger line with Myanmar's junta. Silence is no longer neutrality. It is complicity. Finally, Bangladesh must not be left to shoulder this burden alone. Its generosity should not become its punishment. International institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, must consider direct support packages for the Bangladeshi economy tied to its hosting of refugees. Humanitarian hosting is a global public good and those who deliver it should be rewarded, not bankrupted. We are standing on the edge of a precipice. A population of more than 1 million people faces total abandonment, while new refugees continue to flee persecution with nowhere safe to go. If the camps collapse into chaos or extremism, the world will have no excuse. The warning signs are clear. The UN has raised the alarm. Bangladesh has held the line. But without urgent global action, this fragile situation will shatter. • Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is the director of special initiatives at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, DC. X: @AzeemIbrahim
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Back channel diplomacy is a strategic must in Asean — Phar Kim Beng
JULY 15 — In the highly fluid and dynamic diplomatic environment of Southeast Asia, back-channel diplomacy is not merely an option — it is a strategic necessity. While Asean may appear ritualistic and indecisive on the surface, beneath that calm exterior lies a quiet but firm will not to acquiesce. When issues are too politically combustible or diplomatically delicate to be addressed in formal settings, Asean turns to a different toolkit — one built on discretion, trust, and personal rapport. This is not weakness. It is survival through subtlety. The quiet refusal to accept the unacceptable Asean is often criticized for being too slow, too soft, or too silent. But this criticism stems from a misreading of its behaviour. What looks like passivity is often a calculated refusal to escalate, provoke, or humiliate. Asean's silence in the face of provocation is not always surrender; it is sometimes the only viable way to keep lines of communication open when more forceful approaches would slam them shut. This is where back-channel diplomacy comes into play. It allows Asean states to convey their discontent, concerns, or proposals discreetly. It enables dialogue when formal avenues are blocked. It also enables member states to preserve unity even when they disagree internally. The real work of diplomacy, in such moments, happens far from microphones and cameras. Myanmar: The case for quiet tenacity One of the most pressing examples is Myanmar. Since the 2021 military coup, Asean's formal mechanisms have struggled to engage the junta meaningfully. Public commitments have been ignored or undermined and attempts to dispatch envoys have met roadblocks. Yet the crisis continues to affect the credibility of the region — and the lives of millions. In such a scenario, back-channel diplomacy is not just helpful — it is indispensable. Regional actors have engaged the regime not through loud pronouncements but through quiet visits, confidential dialogues, and the use of respected intermediaries. This includes religious leaders, retired generals, and former diplomats who, while not speaking officially, carry enough stature to be taken seriously. These unofficial engagements are often the only way to negotiate humanitarian access, facilitate de-escalation, or push for incremental confidence-building. When no one else can talk, someone must still listen — and nudge. The value of personal trust networks What enables these efforts to function is not institutional power but personal trust. Southeast Asia has long operated on the strength of relationships: old classmates in government, retired military officers with transnational bonds, scholars who are quietly respected across borders. These relationships become the scaffolding upon which back-channel diplomacy is built. They allow officials — active or retired — to float ideas informally, share warnings discreetly, and explore compromise without political cost. If a proposal fails, it vanishes with no public embarrassment. If it works, it can be elevated to the formal track with minimum friction. This diplomatic informality is not a sign of disorganization. On the contrary, it reflects a high degree of regional maturity — an understanding that trust, not treaties, is often what prevents conflict. Asean is often criticized for being too slow, too soft, or too silent. But this criticism stems from a misreading of its behaviour. What looks like passivity is often a calculated refusal to escalate, provoke, or humiliate. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa Back channel diplomacy in a region of shifting standards Back-channel diplomacy becomes even more critical at a time when the return of great power competition is accompanied by a troubling duality: one standard for the powerful, and another for everyone else. When rules-based international order is selectively applied — or outright ignored — Asean cannot afford to rely solely on formal mechanisms that move too slowly for fast-unfolding crises. In the absence of credible enforcement of international norms, and with the law of the jungle gaining preponderance, Asean must quietly but consistently find ways to de-escalate tensions, protect its cohesion, and preserve regional autonomy. One recent cautionary tale, however, reminds us that while back-channel diplomacy is necessary, it must also be conducted with care and supervision. The leaked phone call between then–Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen, though unofficial in nature, inadvertently exposed the risks of personal, unstructured communications between senior officials. Yet despite the fallout, the issue at hand — the closure of transnational cybercrime hubs straddling the Thai Cambodian border — was and remains a legitimate diplomatic concern. These cybercrime centres, reportedly targeted for shutdown by Chinese authorities, had grown into entrenched organized networks. When Thailand acted to close border crossings, organized criminal interests in Cambodia were affected, triggering both diplomatic unease and operational confusion. It is precisely in such moments — when sovereign decisions clash with transnational pressures — that Asean needs discreet dialogue, not diplomatic posturing. Back-channel diplomacy must not occur in a vacuum. It requires structure, oversight, and credible interlocutors — what might be called policy sherpas — to navigate sensitive files before they escalate. Whether they operate through Track 1.5 dialogues, Track 2 consultations, or confidential political envoys, these sherpas can help test solutions, clear misunderstandings, and build pathways for official action. Asean needs more of them, not fewer. Informality is Asean's quiet instrument of agency In a region as politically diverse and historically fragmented as Southeast Asia, formal diplomacy is often constrained by divergent national interests. What can't be said officially still needs to be communicated. Back-channel diplomacy provides that space. It gives Asean the room to manoeuvre, to clarify misunderstandings, and to avoid unintended escalation. This informal diplomacy also serves another critical function: it prevents external actors from monopolizing the regional narrative. In a world where external powers routinely seek to divide Asean for their own strategic ends, back-channel engagements among member states help ensure a minimum baseline of unity and coordination — even if it remains invisible to outsiders. Rethinking what success looks like Western observers often measure diplomatic success by visible breakthroughs: peace treaties, televised summits, signed declarations. But in Asean's context, success is sometimes best measured by what doesn't happen: crises that don't escalate, provocations that don't trigger retaliation, and situations that don't spiral out of control. Back-channel diplomacy contributes directly to this kind of quiet stability. It prevents issues from hardening into stalemates. It allows countries to test each other's intentions without making irreversible moves. And it provides an escape route from the paralysis of unanimity when formal consensus is elusive. Conclusion: The strength of stillness Asean's style may be quiet, but it is not dormant. Its preference for back-channel diplomacy is neither accidental nor incidental. It is a reflection of the region's hard-won understanding of what works — and what doesn't — in a complex geopolitical theatre. To mistake silence for inaction is to misread the language of diplomacy in Southeast Asia. Back-channel diplomacy is not a retreat. It is a recalibration. It is a way of navigating constraints, preserving unity, and preventing collapse without spectacle. In the end, diplomacy is about outcomes, not optics. And in that quiet corner where official scripts cannot go, Asean's strength lies in its ability to whisper when the world expects it to shout. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
NHK
2 days ago
- Business
- NHK
July 14 NEWSROOM TOKYO Bangkok Live
Lineup: 1. Indonesia, EU agree to move forward on trade agreement 2. UNHCR: 6.3 mil. in need more than 3 months after Myanmar quake 3. Australia's under-16 social media ban divides kids, parents
NHK
2 days ago
- Politics
- NHK
UNHCR: 6.3 mil. in need more than 3 months since Myanmar quake
The United Nations refugee agency says 6.3 million people in Myanmar are still in need of relief measures three-and-a-half months after a massive earthquake. A UNHCR report notes that many people in Sagaing, Mandalay and other areas near the epicenter are forced to live in tents and makeshift shelters during the current rainy season. It says flooding has led to the relocation of some of the sites. The UN agency says mental health and psychological support needs for disaster survivors remain a significant concern. The report also says over 2 million of those affected by the quake had already been internally displaced by a civil war that has raged since a coup four years ago. The military says the quake in late March has left more than 3,700 people dead and over 5,100 injured. The UNHCR is calling for continued international support. In another development, an independent media outlet has reported that the military carried out two airstrikes on a Buddhist temple on Friday. The attack in Sagaing reportedly killed at least 22 people, including children. The National Unity Government, which was formed by the pro-democracy forces, says the victims had been displaced by the conflict and were taking refuge at the temple.
