The Rohingya situation has caused contention between countries in Asia and beyond.   In your opinion which of the following is the best solution?

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

For further reading:

 

 

"...Should Myanmar be forced to take back Rohingya?"

 

Perhaps a better question is should the Rohingya be forced to return to Burma?

 

If I were a Rohingya, I doubt that I would be willing to return to Burma; the evidence seems pretty clear that the Burmese authorities/military were responsible for driving them out.

 

Let me offer a fifth option; Burma, as a penalty for driving them out, must pay for their resettlement elsewhere. My suggestion is that the costs be taken out of the Burmese military budget...

 

 

42 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...Should Myanmar be forced to take back Rohingya?"

 

Perhaps a better question is should the Rohingya be forced to return to Burma?

 

If I were a Rohingya, I doubt that I would be willing to return to Burma; the evidence seems pretty clear that the Burmese authorities/military were responsible for driving them out.

 

Let me offer a fifth option; Burma, as a penalty for driving them out, must pay for their resettlement elsewhere. My suggestion is that the costs be taken out of the Burmese military budget...

 

 

The big $$$ is the Burmese Military's cut of narco production & trafficking.

Should the wife beater be forced to take back his battered wife?

26 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

Should the wife beater be forced to take back his battered wife?

No, he should be evicted from the family home.

 

Likewise the land that the Rohingya once occupied should be annexed as an independent state protected by international peace keeping forces.

Maybe they should go back to Bangladesh where they belong, instead of pushing into neighbouring countries and then trying to force their lifestyle (and religion) onto other nations.
Oh right, Bangladesh doesn't want to look after their Muslim brothers and would rather try to force them to migrate into other countries. No doubt when there's enough of them suddenly Bangladesh will remember that they are truly their own citizens and try to annex the lands they are in.

Rohingya made a rod for their own backs ,now they are paying the price for their actions !

 

Under the new United Nations refugee compact, they probably won't have any choice BUT to take them back.

if Burma is forced to let them return, they also will be forced to recognize them as citizens...

THEN...These Rohingya will have the right for citizenship as well. Following this they will work their way in by way of elections and place Muslims in Government....and on it goes until they have taken a slice of Burma away for Buddist control...Which obviously is their intention all along.

THAT'S why the Burmese Government is rejecting all proposals, from outside influences and such. They rightfully will not allow anyone or anything interfere with their rights to govern their own country...

49 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Under the new United Nations refugee compact, they probably won't have any choice BUT to take them back.

The United Nations has no right to tell a country what they must do....unless it's to stop an escalating war.

They can advise...but not rule over a sovereignty completely.

The UN is out of control, and you will see more countries discuss pulling out of it in the next few years. It's obsolete, and not performing in the roll it was created for....

 

2 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Maybe they should go back to Bangladesh where they belong, instead of pushing into neighbouring countries and then trying to force their lifestyle (and religion) onto other nations.
Oh right, Bangladesh doesn't want to look after their Muslim brothers and would rather try to force them to migrate into other countries. No doubt when there's enough of them suddenly Bangladesh will remember that they are truly their own citizens and try to annex the lands they are in.

They dont belong in Bangladesh , they have lived in Rohingya state ( nee Arakan ) for at least 1000 years.

I daresay this is rather longer than your tribe has lived in its current location , where would you like to be forcibly removed to ?

Theoretically, you are right. But in practice the UN carries a great deal of clout and over time their recommendations tend to be widely implemented.

 

If you don't believe me do some research, for example, on the roll-out of their UN's controversial Agenda 21 programme (now rebranded as Agenda 2030), which - mostly unbeknown to the billions affected - continues drastically to change public policy around the world.

5 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

They dont belong in Bangladesh , they have lived in Rohingya state ( nee Arakan ) for at least 1000 years.

I daresay this is rather longer than your tribe has lived in its current location , where would you like to be forcibly removed to ?

Norway

1 hour ago, macca3248 said:

Rohingya made a rod for their own backs ,now they are paying the price for their actions !

 

May I politely ask how you came to this conclusion , you do realise that the Rohingya have been persecuted for some time.

They have been subjected to enforced ethnic cleansing , we are talking about organised mass rape , murder and expulsion.

This is genocide and to say they brought it on themselves is akin to saying the Holocaust was the fault of the jews.

32 minutes ago, weegee said:

if Burma is forced to let them return, they also will be forced to recognize them as citizens...

THEN...These Rohingya will have the right for citizenship as well. Following this they will work their way in by way of elections and place Muslims in Government....and on it goes until they have taken a slice of Burma away for Buddist control...Which obviously is their intention all along.

THAT'S why the Burmese Government is rejecting all proposals, from outside influences and such. They rightfully will not allow anyone or anything interfere with their rights to govern their own country...

So in your view genocide is acceptable in certain circumstances ?

1 minute ago, joecoolfrog said:

So in your view genocide is acceptable in certain circumstances ?

Oh get off this genocide crap!...it's just a Un tool, to convince people who cant think for themselves, that they are right, in what they are doing....It helps keep the grants coming in...so they fly around living the lifestyle..

Why would they want to return? Did you see the Jews rushing to 'return' to Germany at the end of WWII? Is there really any difference here? Declare them refugees and settle them elsewhere, somewhere that they'll actually be welcome instead of extermination bait for so-called Buddhists.

Bangladesh is a poor country, so why not Saudi Arabia? 

( A group of Rohingya Muslims that attacked Myanmar border guards in October is headed by people with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/myanmars-rohingya-insurgency-has-links-to-saudi-pakistan-report-idUSKBN1450Y7) 

 

" In 1973, during the rule of King Faisal, and following an upsurge in communal violence inside Myanmar, the Gulf kingdom granted Rohingya asylum. The majority of Rohingya who had been given asylum and eventual residency at that time ended up settling in Jeddah and Mecca. Residency has since been passed down several generations, making Saudi Arabia the country with the second highest population of Rohingya outside of Myanmar, after Bangladesh."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-deport-scores-rohingya-refugees-against-their-will-bangladesh-1935328755

 

But

" Saudi Arabia has reportedly banned male citizens from marrying women from three Asian and one African country because authorities claim the local population of people from these states is too high. Men will no longer be able to marry women from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Myanmar and Chad, according to Makkah Daily. The newspaper said the number of people from those four states within Saudi Arabia had exceeded 500,000, a limit set by authorities to manage expatriate populations."

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-arabia-bans-marriage-with-foreigners-from-4-countries-560503.html

 

 

so the Rohingya started all this by attacking military bases and lighting monks on fire and you are saying that the burmese who had finally had enough and kicked them out should take them back and be subjected to terrorism again.....

Why don't one of the big muslim countries like saudi arabia take them in where they can be with their own people....oh that's right they don't take in refugees they demand western countries do and then build big mosques for them......it's like Troy all over again!

36 minutes ago, theonetrueaussie said:

so the Rohingya started all this by attacking military bases and lighting monks on fire and you are saying that the burmese who had finally had enough and kicked them out should take them back and be subjected to terrorism again.....

Why don't one of the big muslim countries like saudi arabia take them in where they can be with their own people....oh that's right they don't take in refugees they demand western countries do and then build big mosques for them......it's like Troy all over again!

I thought you had made this up. Out of all the millions of google "hits" for the poor Rohingyas being attacked and driven out of their homeland for NO REASON, I see this little article from the Independant putting rather a different light on the situation. Hardly a big surprise, whenever a group of people claim to be perpetual victims, the blame lies closer to home. No why on earth only one media outlet reports on Rohingyas brutally attacking the Burmese authorities I have no idea?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rohingya-burma-myanmar-muslim-attack-ambush-police-dead-machetes-rakhine-a7911601.html

In my humble opinion, " Should Myanmar be forced to take back the Rohingya" is not the right question to be asked.

The right question is "What nationality do the Rohingya's have"?

If they are Burmese, yes, Myanmar has to take them back.  If they are not, they are "refugees".  From "somewhere".  It is then the responsibility of "somewhere" to take them back... 

Oh, by the way, everybody seems to have forgotten that this last episode of the crisis would have been triggered by a Rohingya rebels attack that killed 12 of Myanmar security forces and policemen on August 25, 2017... 

Yeah Scott, you might force Myanmar. Good Luck! 

2 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

They dont belong in Bangladesh , they have lived in Rohingya state ( nee Arakan ) for at least 1000 years.

I daresay this is rather longer than your tribe has lived in its current location , where would you like to be forcibly removed to ?

The same argument could be applied to the stateless Karen tribes in Thailand who have been forcefully removed from their 'lands' in National forests.  If the world is condemning one, they should be condemning the other too.  'Indigenous' people always get the short end of the stick in this day and age.  Although Western nations love to play the genocide card as they laud 'freedom, democracy, and human rights', they do so while hypocritically ignoring their own history with both their indigenous members of society and the societies that they decimated (civilized) during Imperial expansionism.  The real game is moral relativity.  The end game is control of resources.

Too many people fall for the sob stories about these people and ignore the crimes they commit, or put them down to provocation. The root of their problem is their religion which makes it difficult for them to integrate into other cultures. They only just got rid of them so why would they take them back and if they were treated so badly why would they go back?

4 hours ago, Basil B said:

Likewise the land that the Rohingya once occupied should be annexed as an independent state protected by international peace keeping forces.

As it once was. Burma annexed it in 1785. Previously known as Arakan.

UK should house the lot.  It was the British that cause this problem from allowing mass immigration when they invaded Burma.  

 

There were just over 58 thousands Muslims there in 1872, and that increased to nearly 179 thousand thanks to British encouraging immigration and settlement of Muslims to work the rice fields, and using them as cheap labour.  

 

Historians believe that most Rohingyas arrived with British colonialists in 19th and 20th centuries.  

 

 

2 hours ago, Opl said:

Bangladesh is a poor country, so why not Saudi Arabia? 

The US is the richest and has plenty of land. I'm sure The Donald would welcome them.

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Under the new United Nations refugee compact, they probably won't have any choice BUT to take them back.

Hopefully Myanmar will not sign that stupid piece of shit.

Myanmar is lucky to get rid of the muslim problem unlike the rest of the world that seems to love being tortured by these terrorists, yes they are all terrorists, read the koran. Myanmar should do everything it can to get rid of any muslims who are still hiding in their country.

6 hours ago, pegman said:

The big $$$ is the Burmese Military's cut of narco production & trafficking.

You mean like Thailand?