The Danger of a One-Sided Narrative in the So-Called Rohingya Issue

Oo Kyaw Thar, Contributing Author

Global Arakan Network November 14, 2025

Understanding the root causes of a conflict is the first step toward resolving it. Yet when a crisis is interpreted through a single, selective narrative, truth becomes the first casualty — and peace the next. The ongoing discourse surrounding the so-called “Rohingya issue” exemplifies this problem: an international dialogue dominated by one voice, while others remain excluded or misrepresented.

A UN Stage Turned Propaganda Platform

On October 30, the United Nations convened a “High-Level Conference on the Situation of Rohingya Muslims and Other Minorities in Myanmar.” The title suggested an inclusive discussion encompassing all minority communities affected by Myanmar’s decades-long conflicts. In practice, however, the event featured mostly self-proclaimed Rohingya activists and lobbyists.

No representatives from Myanmar’s other ethnic groups — nor from the broader Muslim population still living under hardship — were invited. Rather than advancing practical dialogue on repatriation or humanitarian cooperation, the conference devolved into a platform for political rhetoric. Several participants used the stage to deliver speeches filled with accusations and hostility toward the Arakan Army (AA), the ethnic armed organization currently administering large parts of Arakan State.

Absent from the room were representatives of the Arakan Army, the Arakanese community, or even the Myanmar government. Their exclusion silenced crucial perspectives and reinforced the perception that the international community often engages selectively with narratives that fit pre-existing political frameworks.

The Htan Shauk Kan Village Controversy

The dangers of such bias were illustrated in the recent controversy surrounding Htan Shauk Kan Village. So-called Rohingya activists accused the Arakan Army of killing around 600 civilians — a claim widely amplified by Al Jazeera, which relied on an interview with Ansar Ullah, a member of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), an Islamist militant organization.

Subsequent independent investigations told a different story: the victims were Myanmar military soldiers, including Muslim soldiers trained and armed by the Myanmar army itself. A Myanmar military officer later confirmed, “Those were our soldiers, not civilians.” Village leader and villagers also clarified that none of the deceased were residents, and independent Arakan civil society groups reached the same conclusion.

Yet despite this evidence, many international actors continued to echo the unverified allegations — a pattern that has long shaped global perceptions of the conflict.

Some photos related with the Media Trip on Htan Shauk Khan Incident

The Cost of Selective Empathy

The international community’s consistent amplification of Muslim voices — while sidelining Arakanese perspectives — reflects a deeper imbalance. Sympathy for one community should not come at the expense of another’s right to be heard. The Arakanese people, too, have endured displacement, military repression, and economic marginalization. Yet their suffering rarely enters the global conversation.

By framing the issue solely through a human rights lens, many international actors overlook the complex realities of Arakan State — where national security, historical identity, and cultural survival coexist with humanitarian concerns. This narrow approach may satisfy diplomatic agendas, but it fails to foster genuine reconciliation on the ground.

Toward a More Inclusive Path to Peace

A one-sided narrative cannot build peace; it only deepens mistrust and prolongs division. If the world truly seeks a sustainable solution to the so-called Rohingya crisis, it must start by acknowledging all voices — including those of the Arakanese and the Arakan Army. Any meaningful peace process must reflect the perspectives of all communities living in Arakan State, not just those with international visibility.

The United Nations and its partners must ensure that future dialogues are genuinely inclusive. Ignoring the Arakanese perspective means ignoring half of the conflict — and, by extension, half of the solution.

Lasting peace in Arakan cannot be founded on selective sympathy or historical revisionism. It requires mutual recognition, respect, and understanding among all communities that share the same land and destiny. Peace cannot be achieved by listening to only one voice in a land where two peoples must share the same future.