The Annan Report states:
“…On one level, Rakhine represents a development crisis. The state is marked by chronic poverty from which all communities suffer, and lags behind the national average in virtually every area. Protracted conflict, insecure land tenure and lack of livelihood opportunities have resulted in significant migration out of the state, reducing the size of the work force and undermining prospects of development and economic growth. Movement restrictions on the Muslim population hurt the economy. The failure to improve inter-communal relations, enforced segregation and the simmering threat of violence and instability continue to deter private sector investment. Although Rakhine is rich in natural resources, the development of extractive industries – such as oil and gas-related investments in Kyawkpyuh –have not generated a significant number of new jobs nor other benefits for local residents. Both Rakhine and Muslim communities feel marginalised and disempowered by decisions taken in Naypyitaw…”
It is informative that this is the first characterisation Annan chooses to define the crisis. The recently leaked UN report identified the misdirected emphasis that development investment is a cure-all for Rakhine as one of the main reasons the UN has failed to achieve anything useful; but Annan seems to reiterate this emphasis.
On one hand he states that private sector investment has been deterred (implying that a solution could be imminent if investment is undeterred), but on the other hand, he acknowledges that the investment that HAS taken place has failed to “generated a significant number of new jobs nor other benefits for local residents”.
It is also interesting that he notes that “Movement restrictions on the Muslim population hurt the economy” right after mentioning that migration out of the state has reduced the size of the labour force. Would the economy have improved had Muslims been permitted to flee Rakhine, is that the suggestion here?