Misrepresentation of Reality: How BROUK’s Latest Report Fabricates Claims Against the Arakan Army

Report Analysis

Global Arakan Network November 25, 2025

Cover of BROUK's Report and Webinar About It

The Burmese Rohingya Organisation UK (BROUK) recently released a report entitled “The Rohingya genocide: starvation and forced labour as tools of erasure.” The title is deliberately emotive, yet the content is markedly thin on verifiable evidence, independent sourcing, and contextual balance.

The document repeats familiar accusations: that both the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army (AA) are deliberately using starvation and forced labour as tools of genocide, that Buthidaung is already in IPC Phase-5 famine, and that the AA is committing systematic persecution, extrajudicial killings, torture, forced displacement, and even profiting from people-smuggling networks.

Fatal Methodological Flaws

BROUK openly acknowledges severe limitations—communication blackouts, lack of physical access, and reliance on remote interviews—yet still presents sweeping conclusions as fact. No independent, on-the-ground verification is offered for the most incendiary claims against the AA. Many citations trace back to previously contested second- or third-hand accounts that have repeatedly failed scrutiny.

Recycled and Politically Driven Accusations Against the AA

The catalogue of alleged AA crimes—banning the term “Rohingya,” shoot-on-sight curfews, extortion, destruction of mosques, collective punishment, and organised forced displacement—closely mirrors earlier reports by Fortify Rights and Human Rights Watch that were similarly criticised for lack of evidence. The timing and tone suggest a coordinated campaign to delegitimise the AA at a moment when its governance model is gaining traction among diverse local communities.

Critical Facts Deliberately Omitted

1. Visible and growing participation of local Muslims in the United League of Arakan (ULA)/AA civil administration structures, including appointments to village and township-level posts—an undeniable indicator of inclusion rather than systematic persecution.

2. Steady improvement in inter-communal relations in many AA-controlled areas, evidenced by joint markets, shared security arrangements, and public events involving Rakhine and Muslim residents.

3. Well-documented atrocities committed by Rohingya armed groups (ARSA, RSO, ARA, RIM) against Muslim moderates, Rakhine civilians, and even Hindu communities—violence the report completely ignores.

4. Bangladesh’s sustained trade and humanitarian blockade along the northern border, which has choked the flow of food, medicine, and commercial goods into northern Rakhine since early 2024, creating the very shortages and price spikes that are then blamed exclusively on the AA.

Conclusion

Far from being an objective human-rights investigation, BROUK’s report is a politically motivated document that selectively amplifies unverified allegations while suppressing evidence of positive local governance and external factors that actually drive the hardship. By erasing Muslim participation in the new administration, concealing jihadist violence, and hiding Bangladesh’s direct contribution to the humanitarian crisis, the report distorts reality to serve narrow diaspora political interests rather than the welfare of communities on the ground.

In the process, it risks undermining genuine efforts toward inclusive governance in Rakhine State and diverting international attention from the real sources of instability—including armed extremist groups and the continuing economic stranglehold imposed from across the border. Responsible stakeholders should treat BROUK’s claims with extreme caution and demand verifiable, balanced evidence before accepting its narrative.