• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • Categories
  • Authors
  • Print Versions
  • About
  • Masthead
    • 2022-2023
    • 2016-2017

The Bowdoin Review

Burmese Rohingya Can’t Stay But Can’t Leave

Written by: Emma Lawry
Published on: October 24, 2017

Since late August, the Burmese government and its military forces have carried out a variety of coordinated attacks involving arson, rape, murder, and other abuses against the Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority who live predominantly in Myanmar’s western Rakhine State. The majority Buddhist nation views the more than one million Rohingyan men, women, and children as illegal immigrants unworthy of citizenship and many basic rights. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, has referred to the recent attacks against the Rohingya as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing” As a result, almost five hundred thousand Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh in just over a month.

The mass exodus has been inhibited by the Burmese government’s placement of anti-personnel landmines along the Bangladeshi border to prevent the Rohingya from fleeing. According to a report from the Bangladeshi Border Guard, over five people have been killed and over a dozen wounded from landmine blasts.  Since their creation, anti-personnel landmines, which are specifically constructed to detonate upon contact, have killed and wounded roughly one hundred million people worldwide.

A coalition of non-governmental organizations, having recognized the indiscriminate nature of the weapons and their arduous removal process, set out to rid the world of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. Their work resulted in the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, also known as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Those who comply with the treaty must not only halt the production and and advancement of anti-personnel landmines, they must also eradicate their landmine stockpiles within four years of signing. Over eighty percent of the world’s nations, including Bangladesh, have signed the treaty. Myanmar remains one of the few that has not.

For decades, the Burmese military has been accused of employing landmines against a variety of groups, often targeting civilians. In the few years before the start of the Rohingya crisis, however, there was a decline in the usage and placement of landmines in the region; it was, for many, a sign of hope. But the recent mass exodus has sparked a resurgence in landmine usage that has provoked outcry from leaders around the world. Not only do the landmines obstruct many major crossroads between Bangladesh and Myanmar, they have also forced the Rohingya to seek alternative, often perilous methods of escape.  Due to the re-emergence of landmine threats, many have resorted to poorly-constructed boats that are cheap and unstable; on September 29 and October 8, two vessels carrying dozens of Rohingyan men, women, and children capsized, killing most of the people on board.

International leaders worldwide have attacked Myanmar’s de facto leader and 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who has done little to address what prominent figures, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, are calling a genocide. Many have also stressed the future repercussions of landmine usage on Myanmar’s infrastructural and agricultural development and the safety of its people; landmines, which cost roughly three to four dollars to manufacture, cost over one thousand dollars to locate and safely remove from the ground. Not only have these indiscriminate weapons intensified the suffering of the Rohingya, but they will continue to affect generations of innocent civilians well into the future.

Categories: Asia-PacificTags: Myanmar

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Why South Africa Remains Unequal Thirty Years After Apartheid May 7, 2024
  • Skeptical of September February 8, 2024
  • Waterwheel February 7, 2024
  • Nineteen February 7, 2024
  • D.C.’s Most Expensive Retirement Home: Congress    February 7, 2024
  • Instagram

Archives

  • May 2024
  • February 2024
  • October 2023
  • April 2023
  • February 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • February 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • April 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • February 2012

Copyright © 2025 · The Bowdoin Review - A voice on campus for politics, society, and culture.