EU agrees not to use the term “Rohingya”



YANGON: -- The European Union has bowed to a call by Myanmar state counselor Aung San Suu Kyi to avoid the term “Rohingya” to describe prosecuted Muslims in Myanmar.

But the EU, at the same time, urged the government to open more “space” to deal with human rights abuses in the restive northwest, The Irrawaddy Online reported on Thursday.

The EU’s statement exposes a rift in the West’s approach toward the Rohingya issue with the United States continuation to use the term “Rohingya”, citing respect for the right of communities to choose what they should be called.

The Rohingya Muslims are being seen by many Burmese Buddhists as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The term is divisive.

Suu Kyi told the UN Human Rights investigator visiting Myanmar this week that her government would not use the term because it was inflammatory.

“We understand that the term “Rohingya” is emotionally charged in (Burma) and we have heard the call of the government to avoid creating tensions by using polarizing terminology,” Roland Kobia, the EU ambassador to Myanmar told reporters.

Suu Kyi’s administration this week proposed a new term for the Rohingya – Muslim community in (Arakan) state” – but the description has quickly provoked opposition.

The Arakan National Party which enjoys considerable following in the state said the government was biased and rejected the new term.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/eu-agrees-not-use-term-rohingya/


-- Thai PBS 2016-06-24

I thought unwillingness to use term "genocide" ought to have been enough....

Why use the term Rohingya when Bangladeshi is much more accurate. Religion,

language, and genetics link them to Bangladesh.

One of the reasons I am glad we left the EU, the people

call themselves Rohingya,but the EU will not,but bow to

Burma

regards worgeordie

Why use the term Rohingya when Bangladeshi is much more accurate. Religion,

language, and genetics link them to Bangladesh.

How about calling them Indian, then? They've been in Burma since before Bangladesh existed. Perhaps just call them Burmese.

Let's agree not to use the word "Myanmar". We can call it Burma. Populated by Burmese. Speaking Burmese.

Politically correct hogwash.

The UK has had enough of it.

Donald Trump has has enough of it.

It's time to call a spade a spade.

Politically correct hogwash.

The UK has had enough of it.

Donald Trump has has enough of it.

It's time to call a spade a spade.

Exactly.

Besides, no matter what opinion one has on this issue, Myanmar is demanding exactly what China does, just on a different matter.

China demands other countries recognize Tibet as being an integral part of it's territory, that Uyghurs are simply an ethnic group living in China and that Taiwan is a part of China. And of course, they have a hissy fit whenever a prominent western leader (or a leader from any country) meets with the exiled Dalai Lama, who they consider a dangerous "separatist" and "terrorist".

Can UK use the term Rohingya then?

Well there is a Geopolitics behind that problem. By creating  Rohingya term is to get indigenous Status .Indigenous status has political power . Rohingya refuse naturalized citizenship statushttp://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/muslim-villagers-in-myanmars-rakhine-state-refuse-to-participate-in-census-06072016154906.html we don't know who is behind to refuse that most likely is USA .That migrant problem had been long time and it became popular after china start pipe line and deep sea port. Human trafficking of Rohingya and Bangladeshi had been long times but tried to blame Thailand after Thailand shifted toward China in Foreign policy.

USA want to create instability in that area to block China sea outlet of Indian ocean. So creating 2 large indigenous status people with different religions will ensure instability in that area for long time.

Read this article about Geopolitics. https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/myanmar-reckons-muslim-insurgency

 

They are Bangladeshis.. So send them back to Bangladesh. Why is it so wrong for Myanmar not to welcome illegal migrants. Especially when they bring an alien religion with them.. If the World is so concerned why doesn't an islamic country welcome them all ?

On 25/06/2016 at 4:49 AM, xerostar said:

Politically correct hogwash.

The UK has had enough of it.

Donald Trump has has enough of it.

It's time to call a spade a spade.

Really?

 

So why are EUROPEANS who have lived for less than, say three generations in a country like for example Australia, are referred to and refer to themselves as Australians?

 

Or EUROPEANS in South Africa, United States, etc.?

 

Mind boggling reading some of the comments posted.

 

Do I get another official warning from the administrators for posting ANOTHER inflammatory post?

 

Silly me.

On 23/12/2016 at 4:53 AM, zekhong said:

Well there is a Geopolitics behind that problem. By creating  Rohingya term is to get indigenous Status .Indigenous status has political power . Rohingya refuse naturalized citizenship statushttp://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/muslim-villagers-in-myanmars-rakhine-state-refuse-to-participate-in-census-06072016154906.html we don't know who is behind to refuse that most likely is USA .That migrant problem had been long time and it became popular after china start pipe line and deep sea port. Human trafficking of Rohingya and Bangladeshi had been long times but tried to blame Thailand after Thailand shifted toward China in Foreign policy.

USA want to create instability in that area to block China sea outlet of Indian ocean. So creating 2 large indigenous status people with different religions will ensure instability in that area for long time.

Read this article about Geopolitics. https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/myanmar-reckons-muslim-insurgency

 

 

 

The US didn't succeed though.

 

Bangladesh, with Chinese financial assistance is building a deep sea port in the Bay of Bengal, the only such port in this area. Such a port can't be built in Indian or Myanmarese territory as neither country has deep enough waters.

 

Seems like the Chinese have succeeded. Good luck to them.

On 24/06/2016 at 0:05 PM, Ulic said:

Why use the term Rohingya when Bangladeshi is much more accurate. Religion,

language, and genetics link them to Bangladesh.

And the Uighurs are more akin to the Turks.

 

So Uighurs should be called Turkish?

 

Or that Romanies across Europe were originally from India, should all Romanies be called Indians?

 

Or the Chakmas in Bangladesh originated from Myanmar, should they be called Myanmarese?

 

Or ... get the gist?

 

I think you should do a little bit of reading.