[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
1992: AUSTCARE Report on Burma Refu
Subject: 1992: AUSTCARE Report on Burma Refugees.
/* posted May 1 12:30pm 1995 by uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on igc:soc.culture.burma */
/* ---------" 1992: AUSTCARE report on Burma Refugees "--------- */
[Following June 1992 report on Burmese refugees was prepared by
AUSTCARE, 69-71 Parammatta Road, Camperdown 2050, Sydney Australia.
I reposted the part of report concerning the Rohingyas, which may
interest some of you. -- U Ne Oo.]
INTRODUCTION
------------
AUSTCARE (Australians Care For Refugees), a major Australian
non-government aid organisation, has programs for refugees throught
the developing world. In 1987 it inaugurated National Refugee Week
in order to raise the awareness of Australians about refugee
issues. As a focus for Refugeee Week 1992, AUSTCARE and the
Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists
(ASICJ) invited the respected human rights activist and first
President of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission, the Hon. Justice Marcus Einfeld of the Federal Court of
Australia, to visit three major refugee trouble spots: the
so-called Vietnamese "boat people" in Hong Kong, the Burmese
refugees in Bangladesh and the Thai/Burmese border situation. The
ASICJ commissioned this report with a view to highlighting the
infractions of human rights being inflicted on refugees and other
displaced persons in these places.
The visit was under taken between 20 March and 6 April 1992.
Justice Einfeld was accompained in Hong Kong by AUSTCARE's National
Marketing Manager, Bobbie Dart, and in Bangladesh by its Program
Co-ordinator Patricia Garcia. He was also accompanied by the
Executive Officer to NSW Attorney General, the Hon. Peter Collins
QC MP, John Hall, who has assembled this report. The visit was
chrinicled on film by a team from SBS television led by jorunalist
Vivian Schenker who has since produced two documentary reports
screened by SBS.
Considerable assistance and co-operation was rendered by officials
of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) under
Chief de Mission Darioush Bayandor, who arrived in Bangladesh at
about the same time as Justice Einfeld.
Justice Einfeld expresses his deep appreciation of the assistance
rendered to him by all these persons, by Attorney General Collins,
by officials of the Hong Kong, Bangladeshi and Australian
Governments and of the UNHCR in Bangladesh, Geneva and Australia,
and by representatives of the many non-government organizations in
the countries visited who made the mission and this report
possible.
SYDNEY, 17 JUNE 1992.
---------------------
<Page 32 - 59.> BANGLADESH
--------------------------
Introduction
------------
One of the most serious refugee problems in the world today is
situated in Bangladesh. Having started as a trickle of people in
about June 1991, in October 1991 large numbers of Rohingas, Muslim
people from a western state of Burma called Arakan, began to cross
the Naf River, which forms the border between Burma and Bangladesh.
The crossing point is near a town called Teknaf. At the time of my
visit to the area in April 1992, the number of refugees exceeded
200,000. My own observations and information provided by the UNHCR
and other aid agencies established that people were then entering
Bangladesh at the rate of 4,000-5,000 per day.
The number of refugees has since grown to over 268,000 people.
Despite a recent agreement between Bangladesh and Burma to commence
repatriation, the people are not only not returning; new refugees
are crossing the Naf river at the rate aof about 2,000 a day.
Burma is today governed by a military dictatorship which has
conducted a series of campaigns against the country's ethnic
minorities for many years. The State Law and Order Restoration
council (SLORC) , which governs Burma, is widely regarede as one of
the most brutal and repressive regimes in the world. All
fundamental human rights are actively suppressed, including freedom
of religion, movement, speech, political opinion, and association,
and economic and cultural independence.
The SLORC's discrimination against ethnic minorities has resulted
in the growth of insurgencies amongst the Rohingya, Karen, Kachin,
Karenni, mon and other groups of Burmese people. There are
currently upheavals in virtually all border areas of burma,
resulting in large numbers of refugees seeking refuge in Thailand,
China, India and Bangladesh.
Background
----------
It is mportant to understand the historical context within which
this crisis has occurred. The plight of the Rohingya people can be
seen primarily as a matter of religious persecution. Arakan has a
history dating back to the 14th Century. In 1824 there was a mass
migration of Muslims (Indians) into Arakan, after the British
annexed it during the First Burmese war. The first British
Ambassador to Burma in 1924 was Sir Adrian Cox, who encouraged the
Indians to wark as labourers in Arakan State. In 1936 Britain
declared Burma self governing, thereby separating it from India, of
which it was then part. This left the Muslim people of Arakan
unprotected from Burma as it developed into a Buddhist state.
Religious riots first took place in Arakan in 1939, stemming from
different Buddhist and Muslim religious philosophies in respect of
killing of animals, principally the cow. Serious anti-Muslim
violence also occurred in 1942 following the withdrawal of British
troops in the wake of the Japanese invasion. According to one
account:
Gangs of Buddhist Arakanese communalists raided Muslim
villages in the southern parts of the province and massacred
more than 100,000 unarmed Muslims .....[Arakan, December
31,1989, p.25]
Many thousands fled north into bangladesh (then India, later
Pakistan). In 1945 the British proclaimed North Arakan a "Muslim
National Area" and Muslims were appointed to senior posts in the
Government.
However, Arakan is not a Muslim state and other ethnic and
religious groups live there. The muslims are considered to be
immigrants by other Arakanese, and are discriminated against by
these Arakanese in many walks of life. Marriages of non-Muslims to
Indians result in the persons being totally cut off from their
Arakanese families. On the other hand, it is reumoured that vast
monetary rewards are gien by fellow Muslims to Muslims who marry
into prominent Arakanese families, and the SLORC has apparently
always been eager to produce evidence to this effect to assist its
anti-Muslim campaign.
In recent times, the mon-Muslim Arakanese have largely put aside
their feelings about the Muslims, and now refuse to be drawn into
religious or anti-Indian uprisings being regularly instigated by
the SLORC. This has resulted in the SLORC being unable to incite
riots and to shift the blame for the Rohingya exodus to the
Arakanese people. It is widely believed that following the demise
of the SLORC, and in the absence of its propaganda against the
Muslims, the non-Muslim Arakanese people would be more tolerant
towards them.
In January 1948 Burma was recognised as an independent state by the
United Nations. The first prime minister, U Nu, governed in a
bi-cameral political system founded on the Constitution of 1947.
The Constitution was based on a consensus between the majority
Buddhists and the minority groups, and provided for a federal
system of government, with Union and State Governments, and a
separation of power between the executive, the legislature and
judiciary.
However, the rights of ethnic minorities were not respected in
reality. In 1948 the Communist Party was raided and went
underground. This proved to be a catalyst for minority groups
throught the country. Discrimination against Muslims was
widespread, and included the removal of Muslims from Government
positions and their replacement by Buddhists. Moreover, Muslim
refugees in East Bengal (now Bangladesh) were denied re-entry to
Burma, whereas what are called Mogh Buddinsts were encouraged to
return and were assisted to do so by a Government program.
Nevertheless, during the U Nu period, Burma boasted a free press,
high educational standards, a developing economy and relative
observance of the rule of law. It was said to be the richest
country in South Asia.
In 1962 General Ne Win seized power in a coup d'etat. Ne Win ruled
through decrees passed by aa Revolutionary Council of which he was
chairman, and developed an aggressive and irrational mix of policy
which could loosely be described as Marxist. The coup and its
aftermath were summarised in a 1991 report by the International
Commission of Jurists (ICJ):
The President, Prime Minister U Nu and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme court U Myint Thein as well as Cabinet Ministers and
other leaders were thrown in gaol .......On March 8, 1962 the
Revolution Council dissolved the Parliament. On 30 March 1962
the Supreme court and the High Court were abolished and were
replaced by the Chief court of Myanmar. This new set of courts
consisted of three members, who in most cases were military
officers. General Ne Win's Cabinet consisted of 15 Army
officers and one officer each from the Navy and the Air Force.
There was not a single civilian in it. [Makhdoon Ali Khan, "The
Burmese ways to Where", p.18]
The Ne Win junta pursued a number of specifically anti-Muslim
policies. In 1964 the Mayu Frontier Administration, established for
Rohingya development, was abolished - as were the United Rohingya
League, the Rohingya Cultural Association and the Universities'
Rohingya Student Association. The following year the Rohingya
Language Program which was broadcast twice weekly by the Burma
Broadcasting Service in Rangoon was also abolished. Other
impairments in the freedom of Muslims were also initiated,
including restricitons on their movement throught the country.
Fundamental human rights in general also suffered under the Ne Win
regime. In particular, the rule of law effectively ceased to
operate, except to the extent that it suited the purposes of the
regime. Gradually the free press was eradicated and in 1966 all
private newspapers were banned and foreign journalists expelled.
All publications were placed under the control of a government
board. Schools were nationalised and curricula controlled. The
teaching of minority and foreign languages virtually ceased. The
literacy rate plummeted from 67% in 1978 to 18.7% in 1987.
In an attempt to legitimise itself, the regime began to develop a
new constitution in 1971, which, after several drafts, was ratified
by a 90.19% vote at a national referendum in 1973. Millions did not
vote, despite the pressure on everyone to participate. In 1974 the
Revolutionary Council was abolished, and replaced by a People's
Assembly, ehich in turn elected the council of State. As chairman
of the Council of State, Ne Win became the President. The
Constitution was drafted to ensure that the only legal party - the
Burma Socialist Program Party - maintained complete control over
all tiers of government, in much the same wy as the Communist
Parties in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
In the latter half of 1974, a series of strikes and student
demonstration was brutally put down by the regime. Ne Win used this
as an excuse to declare martial law, which persisited until 1988.
In that year there occurred a series of virtually nationwide
demonstrations which were inspired by a decision in September 1987
so that:
All currrency notes above the value of about $2.00 were
demonetised and virtuallly 70% of all currency in circulation
was rendered valueless. [Khan, ibid p.22]
In June 1988, in the face of a rapidly deteriorating situation, Ne
Win resigned. On 18 September, in an obviously staged coup, General
Saw Maung, the Defence Minister, took power. He established an 18
member State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) which
assumed all legislative, executive and judicial power. As the ICJ
reported:
Gathering of more than 5 people were prohibited, curfew was
imposed and demonstrators were shot. The (army) cleared the
streets of all protesters and opposition. House-to-house
searches were carried out and a number of those apprehenede
were summarily executed.[Khan, ibid p.26]
The SLORC took, and to this day maintains, absolute power. The
court system has been completely reorganised, and a tier of
military tribunals established to deal with all political cases.
'Trials' by these tribunals are a sham, the onus of proof resting
upon the accused, and sentences range from 3 years hard labour to
death.
Shortly after its commencement, presumably to seek a popular
mandate for itself and expecting to take advantage of the impotency
of other groups after years of authoritarian rule, the SLORC
promised free and fair elections to a new constituent assembly.
However, in September 1988, in order to concentrate opposition
forces, the three main opposition leaders launched a new political
party called the National League for Democracy (NLD). It was led by
Aung Gyi as Chairman, Tin Oo as Vice Chairman and Aung San Suuu Kyi
as General Secretary. Suu is the daughter of a popular independence
hero.
Aung Gyi left the NLD on the 3 December 1988, and Tin Oo was
elected Chairman on 10 December 1988. Aung Gyi set up his own party
called the United Nationals Democracy Party (UNDP) on 16 December
1988. It was widely believed that he would merge the UNDP with the
SLORC'S party, the National Unity Party (NUP), if the NUP won the
elections.
On 27 May 1990 a national election was held, and the NLD won 392
out of 485 seats. The UNDP did not win any seats. To this day the
SLORC has refused to transfer power to the new party or allow the
parliamentary assembly to meet. It has placed a series of
pre-conditions on the transfer, and has ensured that the
pre-conditions cannot be net. Moreover, Suu Kyi was placed under
house arrest where she has remained since the election, and a
number of NLD officials and elected candidates, including the now
eldersly U Nu, were imprisoned. Others fled into exile in Thailand.
Suu's house arrest meant separation from her husband and childern
and total inaccessibility to anyone other than tradesmen, suppliers
and domestic assistants.
The Citizenship Law of 1982
---------------------------
The Citizenship Law of 1982 allowed the junta to perpetuate its
anti-minority policies. The law creates three grades of
citizenship: full, associate and naturalised. All ethnic groups
which settled in Burma before 1923 were categorised as full
citizens; those who came during British rule and applied for
citizenship under the Union Citizenship Act of 1948 were
categorised as "associate citizens"; and all others as
"naturalised".
However, there is no legally enforceable right to citizenship, and
the decision in each case is in the discretion of the SLORC. This
has allowed the SLORC to renderminorities effectively non-citizens,
and provided further opportunities for anti-minority policies.
The Rohingyas
-------------
There have reportedly been 13 major military operations against
Muslims in Arakan since 1948. [Media release, Arakan Rohingya
Islamic Front, 14 March 1992]. In 1978 the regime launched
operation NAGA MIN (Dragon King) wihch left 10,000 dead and forced
between 200,000 and 300,000 across the border to seek refuge in
Bangladesh. International pressure eventually forced the regime to
accept the refugees back, though many remained in Bangladesh. It
would appear that the current influx of refugees is a result of
another operation of the Dragon King type. A recent report , under
the headline "SLORC launched program against Rohingyas", stated:
..... Burmese armed forces have let loose orgies of killing,
looting and raping all over Arakan. The armed forces open fire
with heavy guns on the civilian population in Rohingya
inhabited areas on the slightest pretext, killing and injuring
large numbers of civilian population. [Comsumer Economist,
Dhaka, 9-16 February 1992]
There are literally hunderds of reports of atrocities and human
rights violations. My colleagues and I, and UNHCR officials, spoke
to a number of people claiming first hand experience of events,
including women who had been assaulted and raped. Some showed us
signs of the brutalities committed upon them.
The military operations have been exacerbated by the forced
resettlement of Buddhists into Rohingya areas, resulting in the
confiscation of Rohingya property, including farms and livestock. A
typical report reads:
Our houses and properties including bullocks and ploughs were
snatched away by police and army and those were gien to the
Mogh settlers ....... Rohingya Muslims will not be allowed to
go back to their ancestral home in Arakan as Mogh population
is given permanent settlement by uprooting Rohingya.
[The Morning Sun, Khaka, 11 March 1992]
All reports reveal a pattern of violence by Burmese troops,
including enforced slave labour to carry supplies for troops and
for construction of roads. Rape occurs on an appalling scale. There
are hunderds of reported cases where women have been abducted and
forced to carry heavy loads through mountainous terrain
("portering"), rape repeatedly every night, and fed almost nothing.
Needless to say, many do not survive the experience.
SLORC military activity in Arakan is also directed at a number of
Muslim organisations, which differ substantially in size, strength
and aims. A recent article summarised the situation:
The two main groups are the moderate Arakan Rohingya Islamic
Front and the more militant Rohingya Solidarity Organisation
(RSO). The smaller groups include the Rohingya Patriotic
Front, Rohingya Liberation Army, Arakan People's Freedom Party
and Harkate Jihadul Islam. The armed strength and popular
following of these groups are hard to determine. [S.
Kamaluddish, "The Arakan Exodus", Far Eastern Econimic Review,
26 March 1992]
It is alleged that some groups are armed and have jungle camps.
Moreover, there are suggestions that the separatist groups - those
fighting for a separate Muslim Arakan State - are being funded and
armed by other Islamic nations such as Libya. This is lent some
credence by statements, attributed to Libya's Colonel Gaddafi,
critical of the SLORC and supportive of the Muslim cause in Arakan.
However, from my enquiries it seems doubtful that a separate
Rohingya State will ever be acceptable to the Burmese people,
despite efforts by some groups to promote it as a solution to inter
-religious or cultural tensions.
Business and Military Activity
------------------------------
The takeover of Burma by the Ne Win regime saw an almost total
prohibition on foreign business investment in Burma. However, in
1988 the SLORC introduced new foreign investment laws allowing 100%
foreign - owned firms to invest in Burma, permitting 35% or more
foreign investment in joint ventures, guaranteeing that
foreign-owned assets would not be nationalised, allowing foreign
investory to repatriate profits, and providing 3 year tax
exemptions to them. The consequence has been a series of lucrative
business deals between the SLORC and foreign companies designed to
frustrate internationa efforts to deny the junta econ9mic or
military assistance.
Huge quantities of military hardware have been purchased -
including fighter aircraft, tanks, artillery and small arms -
principally from China. It has been estimated that Burma's recent
arms deals with china have exceeded $US 1.2 bullion. [The Nation,
16 April 1992]/ A recent media statement by the SLORC stated that
in the 1992/93 financial year Burma would increase defence spending
by $US 200 million to $US 1.26 billion - 35% of the total
budget.{Bangkok Post, 23 April 1992]. With not a semblance of an
outside enemy, this is a staggering admission.
Burma's major trading partners are China, Japan, Korea, Singapore,
Taiwan and Thailand. To that list can be added Australia, Belgium,
Britain, Canada, France, Germeny, Holland, Isreal, Italy, Pakistan,
Singapore, Sweden and the USA. As the ICJ reported:
The Government sold logging and fishing rights to Thai
companies, logging rights and rights of jade exploration to
the Chinese and oil-exploration rights to a number of
multi-nationals. Shell Exploration of Britain, Petro Canada
Resources owned by the Governemnt of Canada, Indemitsu Oil
Development of Japan, Yukonglo of South Korea, Amoco, Exxon
and Unocol of the United States and Elf of France, signed oil
exploration and production-sharing contracts with the Myanmar
Oil and Gas Enterprises. It is reported that each company paid
a license fe of $US 5 million. [Khan, ibid p 83]
It is obviously quite unacceptable for countries, including
Australia, to make high sounding statements about Burms's human
rights abuses whilst simultaneously allowing, and in some cases
encouraging, such business relationships. This particularly so with
arms sales.
The growth of business interest in Burma is also resulting in
severe degradation of the environment. Manay reports indicate that
huge areas of forest - particularly teak - are being clear felled,
by Japanese and Thai companies among others, without any attempt
whatsoever to control the environmental side-effects. This clear
felling suits the SLORC's purposes in three ways. Apart from the
income that it generates, the clearing of forstss removes the cover
for insurgent groups, and forestry roads allow the Burmese army to
move more easily into difficult terrain.
The Relief Effort in Bangladesh
-------------------------------
>From the first crossing into Bangladesh of significant numbers of
refugees until March 1992, the Bangladeshi governemnt dealt with
the problem almost exclusively internally - either through
governemnt officials or by some mainly Bangladeshi non-governemnt
organisations (NGOs). These were increasingly assisted by a number
of foreign NGOs. The reasons for having kept control within
Bangladesh for so long before internationalising it appear to be
partly because it took some time before tha true extent of the
problem became clear, and partly because the Government preferred
to rely upon its own bilateral diplomatic contact with Burma to
resolve the problem.
Due to its past experiences within its won borders and the 1978
Rohingya refugee crisis, Bangladesh has developed a generally
excellent capacity for disaster relief. The person principally
responsible in the present case is the Districy commissioner who
has administrative responsibility for a substantial area including
Cox's Bazar, the nearest large town of Teknaf, the scene of the
crisis. Cox's Bazar is about 45 minutes by plane south of Dhaka.
Teknaf is more than 3 hours by road south of Cox's Bazar. The
District Commissioner told my colleagues and me that he had
controlled the refugee situation personally from October 1991 until
February 1992 without outside assistance. However, at the rate of
new arrivals, any real control over the situation was eventually
rendered practically impossible.
With respect to day-to-day management of the refugees, the
Government appointed a senior public servant - known a the Refugee
commissioner - to co-ordinate and control all camps. The Refugee
Commissioner is assisted by four staff, some of whom have had
experience with cyclone relief and other disosters.
In the field, the principal organisation in the Gonoshasthaya
Kendra (GK), a Dhaka-based NGO. Teh Executive Director of GK in
Cox's Bazar, Dr Ghulam Justafa, conducted my colleagues and me on a
tour of teh camps, and assisted in interviews with camp officials
and residents.
GK grew out of the 1971 war with Pakistan which resulted in the
independence of Bangladesh. Two Bangladeshi doctors came from
Britain and established a field hospital. After the war a
charitable trust was established to build upon this pioneering
work, particularly in development issues. Since then the
organisation has grown and has developed experience through a
number of disasters, including the 1974 famine, the 1985 cyclone,
and the 1988,1989 and 1991 floods, cyclones and tidal waves. It is
headed by the dynamic Dr Zafrullah Chaudhury. The principal skills
of GK, apart fro being a disaster relief organisation, are in the
areas of medicine, nutrition and disaster housing.
Two of Dr Choudhury's particular achievements are worth mentioning.
GK employs a majority of women and pursues equal opportunity
policies that put most western nations to shame. It has also been
instrumental in developing a national drug manufacturing program
which now supplies all or most of Bangladesh's principal
pharmaceutical requirements, and has freed the country from what
was formerly total reliance upon multi-national drug companies.
The Camps
---------
The Rohingya regfugees are housed or are squatting in camps
situated along the road between Cox's Bazar and Teknaf. This is a
low lying area wiht significant quantities of unclean stagnant
surface water. It is extremely vulnerable to rain which causes the
river level to rise and swamp the plain.
At the time of my visit there were 11 camps, providing shelter for
just under 100,000 refugees - leaving a further 100,000 refugees
requiring shelter. My colleagues and I visited all of the camps, in
particular spending a considerable time at Dechuapalong II, the
largest and most organised camp.
Under the administration of experienced government employees,
assisted by officers of GK, the camp had some 23,000 residents in
late March. The people were housed in 153 thatched 'log houses'.
These buildings are relatively solid but some of them have
corrugated iron roofs which, if dislodged during a cyclone - a
quite likely event - would cause immense danger as they flew around
this heavily populated area. The "apartments" allocated to each
familiy group inside the buildings were small. I could not stand
fully upright in them. 155 pit latrines were provided but some were
in high positions so that if they become flooded by rain, the
overflow will almost certainly cause widespread disease. 71 wells
provide drinking water but again the survivability of this supply
in a monsoon is problematic. 4 health teams were in operation and a
program was under way to vaccinate all childern between 6 months
and 2 years of age for measles. Childern's classes in the
particular dialect of the Rohingyas are provided daily. I witnessed
one such class in progress.
For the remainder of the camps, the type of 'shelter' in most
instances consists of flimsy grass huts, all of which are
shockingly overcrowded. There was little water on site and minimal
toilet facilities. Plans were in place to use plastic sheeting for
new shelters, and the Refugee commissioner informed me that
sheeting for 65,000 people was on order. Tens of thousands of very
recent arrivals had no shelter at all and merely squatted under
large trees. There was a massive need for potable drinking water.
Health services were being provided by GK, Medicins Sans Frontiers
and UNHCR. The refugees suffer, and some die, from a variety of
health problems including malnutrition, diarrhoea, measles,
tetanus, gastro-intestinal disorders, malaria and dysentery, among
others. There is a special diarrhoea clinic to try to reduce the
deaths. The childern were particularly vulnerable. Most of the
refugees had apparently never seen a doctor or been medically
treated in Burma. They certainly had not had any professional
dental treatment in their lives. The provision of truly effective
health services under such conditions is, of course, impossible
except on a very basic level.
I also saw the distribution and some preparation of food. Until 1
April 1992, food was provided by the Bangladesh Red Crescent
Society, under a program financed by the EEC andthe Red Cross. It
was repleced on 1 April by supplies from the World Food Program.
Food is distributed via stores in each camp, supplied form a
central repository in Cox's Bazar. Family packs of food are used (
a concept developed by GK), based on the number of people in each
family. The calorific value of the parcles is 2,200 calories per
person per day, and packages are issued weekly. The diet does not
change from week to week (mainly rice, soya bean oil and salt), and
the ration is extremely meagre. It requires supplementing by
hunting, fishing or searching for locally grown fruit and
vegetables.
Most of the refugees arrive with minimal possessions - a fer
cooking pots and very basic clothing. Some report having travelled
many hundreds of miles through difficult terrain, often on foot,
prior to getting into the boats to cross the river to Bangladesh.
Consequently many people, especially the childern and the elderly,
are in poor condition and often very malnourished. Some are quite
ill or diseased and may not survive.
Some 45% of the refugees are under 12 years of age. Families tend
to be large with childern close together in age. Birth control or
family planning is virtually unknown in Rohingya
culture Many women are already pregnant upon arrrival, and there
are, therefore, a large number of births in the camps. This in
itself has created major difficulties. There are no facilities to
undertake a caesarean section in the camps, nor even in cox's
Bazar, where the district hospital operates under the most stressed
and distressing conditions. The nearest hospital for operations
under general anaesthetic is about 120 kms away, many haours by
car. Baby care facilities in the camps are minimal and babies are
susceptible to fatal diseases from the moment of their birth.
Recent Developments
-------------------
Shortly after my visit, General Saw Maung resigned from the
leadership of the SLORC and his successor made some public
pronouncements of a change of attitude in the leadership. A number
of political prisoners have reportedly been released, including U
Nu, teh attacks on towns, camps and people near the thai border
were supposedly stopped, Aung San Suu Kyi was allowee to see her
husband and childern for the first time in four years, and the
Rohingyas were invited to return. Few if any have done so.
The announcement concerning the rugrgees was that those who could
prove their citizenship could return. This appears to be a most
dubious "concession". Firstly of course, it provides no guarantee
of freedom from harassment and mistreatment. As a number of people
I met had also crossed into Bangladesh at the time of the last
forced exodus in 1978, it is unlikely that many will be persuaded
to return without at least international guarantees of protection.
As the junta's new policy announcement expressly forbade protection
by the UNHCR, no such guarantee can be given. An invitation by the
SLORC to one or more countries to perform the task, of which there
is absolutely no sign, would not provide an answer because it would
be impossible for such countries to stay if the invitation was
withdrawn or to perform any functionwhich was not expressly
permitted.
Secondly, the refugees I spoke to had few or no papers to prove or
disprove citizenship. The people and their forbears have clearly
been living in Arakan for generations. As Muslims in Arakan are
ethnically Bangali rather than of oriental origin, and their
language apparently approximates the dialect spoken only in
southern Bangladesh, though they are not Bangladeshi, there seems
no doubt of their entitlement to Burmese citizenship. The fact that
the people I spoke to said that they had voted in the 1990
elections conducted by the SLORC merely acknowledges and emphasises
their long held entitlement to live in Burma. The fact that they
voted for Suu Kyi may be a reason for the qualification now put on
their right to return, or the danger they may face if they do.
Although Suu herself has reportedly called for the leaders of the
SLORC to be given the benefit of the doubt about their bona fides
in the regard, the consensus view of democratic forces as conveyed
to me is that the junta has no intention of relaxing its iron grip
on the country and the people, or its devastation of the economy
and the environment. This view is that the SLORC's recent actions
are merely a response to the embarrassing public revelations of its
savagery and to some pressure from other countries, probably to try
to ward off economic and political sanctions.
There seems no early likelihood of a revolt from within the armed
forces themselves. I was advised that the leadership has been
careful to involve everyone, even lowly officers, in brutality and
mistreatment of ordinary people. Young officers are even encouraged
to rape village women while on patrol in rural areas. The word is
spread throughout the military that if the SLORC is overthrown, no
mercy will be shown by the incoming administration and the people
to all those who participated in oppression and criminal misconduct
during the years of military dictatorship. As a consequence, the
possibility of a breakaway or dissident group of officers making a
move is thought to be remote.
I am not in a position to do other than record experience that
fascism rarely cedes power to democracy voluntarily, especially
where power is exercised diffusely and not centred on a single
dictator. Unless the SLORC is an unexpected exception, it will have
to be prised from power. Whichever way it moves, the early return
of the Rohingyas to Burma should not be anticipated. If they merely
remain in Bangladesh for 6 or 12 months, their needs and the cost
of their survival and maintenance will be prodigious. their numbers
will, of course, continue to grow.
Moreover, social problems are deepening. The most recent edition of
the Jesuit Refugee Service's publication BURMA UPDATE (6 June 1992)
reports:
There have been outbreaks of violence in some of the camps,
now housing over 268,000 refugees. And wiht the rainy season
now under way, the temporary housing is showing itself to be
very inadequate. So is the sanitation system. It will now be a
struggle for UNHCR to maintain adequate food and medicine
supplies. And a temporary situation may be turning into a
long-term problem. Because of the anxiety about
'trouble-makers' coming to the camps, new rules require
foreigners and others visiting the camps to get a permit from
authoritues.
It is unthinkable that the world could opt not to respond to this
crisis.
CONCLUSIONS
-----------
1. The ultimate solution of the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh is
the return of the refugees to Burma.
2. They will not go willingly until there is an assurance or at
least a reasonable likelihood of a cessation of the atrocities.
Many told me that they would not return until Suu Kyi was released
and in charge of the government.
3. This means that the United Nations multilaterally, or its member
countries individually, must bring pressure on the SLORC first to
cease atrocities and the oppression of the people, and second to
transfer power to the elected parliament. this is only likely to be
achievable in the near future by isolating the SLORC and persuading
its military suppliers and financial props to withdraw their
backing for the regime and their involvement in Burma while the
junta remains. The point might be made that the SLORC's eventual
overthrow is inevitable and its supporters are unlikely to be
favoured by its democratic successors.
4. The main countries in this regard are China which supplies arms
and ammunition to the regime, Japan which has much commercial
activity in Burma including the logging and export' of timber form
Arakan, Thailand said to be the largest overall investors, and
major western trading countries.
5. Some aid donor countries have stopped their programs, but oil
and mineral explorations are bieng carried on, and exploration
concessions for such purposes bought from the regime, by at least
one Australian, one British, one Canadian, one Dutch, one French,
one Japanese, one South Korean, and three U.S. companies. Some of
these companies are government-owned or influenced. AUSTRADE is
still operating in Rangoon where most free countries, including
Australia, maintain embassies. The Rangoon consultancy firm which
the regime likes foreigners to use when making an approach is said
to be controlled by Ne Win's son-in-law.
6. Thus far the UNHCR has not asked other countries to assist with
anything other than money and perhaps plastic sheeting. Its
attitude is that clothing, blankets, foodstuffs and other items
which ordinary citizens of other countries could, and would
undoubtedly be willing to, donate would cause more trouble and cost
in assembling, sorting and transporting than they were worth.
7. the problem is that governments of the democratic developed
world are under stress at present, economically and eletorally. In
view of the moneys being provided for the returning Cambodian
refugees and other refugee and international problems, a generous
official response for the Rohingya fund seems remote, without much
pressure from the would's people and non-government organisations.
The currency of the monsoon season in Bangladesh and the dialy and
continuing vulnerability of the Rohingyas to physical harm, disease
and worse do not seem to be sufficient present catasysts for a
change of heart in this respect.
8. In addition to insisting that governments respond more
generously and constructively, there is a need to appeal to, and
seek a response from, the private sector, firstly for money.
9. There are also other ways the private sector can assist. In view
of the poor condition of the only road from Cox's Bazar to Teknaf,
good transportation is needed urgently, especially in the monsoon
season, to carry supplies and personnel. There may also be a need
to evacuate large numbers of people at short notice and transport
ill people to hospitals. Approprate corporations should therefore
be asked to provide, either by gift or loan, helicopters and
four-wheel drive vehicles.
10. Drugs, food, clothing, building materials and tools could all
be collected in substantial quantities from corporations and
individuals. If endorsement or sponsorship is need, it seems a
small price to pay for saving lives. There are many NGOs which
could, and would undoubtedly be willing to, assist in collection
and handling of such items. Transportation could be solicited from
airlines, the armed forces of participating countries, and people
with private aircraft of sufficient size. All of this would free
donated money for other purposes.
11. There is of course an urgent need for more land on which
suitable camps can be built. The problem can best be demonstrated
by reporting the view of the UN experts I met that the ideal
population for any one camp should not exceed 10,000 people. To
build such a camp takes about two weeks if conditions are giood and
water is available. If the current influx rate is up to 2,000
refugees a day continues, it can be seen that a very substantial
camp construction program is needed, to take p the aacklog of
people already waiting for shelter and to keep up with the influx.
Meanwhile almost 200,000 lightly clad people are sitting out in the
rain every minute of every day. The Bangladeshi government says it
is planning for upwards of 2 million refugees.
12. Land supply is of course primarily a matter for Bangladesh. As
the nation takes very seriously its responsibility to receive the
refugees and not force them back across the river, the Bangladesh
authorities can be relied on to search anxiously for suitable land.
The main difficulties are that Bangladesh is small and over
populated (about 120 million people in an area a little over half
the size of Victoria), and the Bangladeshi quthorities do not want
the refugees to mix with the local population. The possible need to
deforest available land and the absence of potable waer thus emerge
as serious hindrance to the availability of more land for camps.
the takeover of private land, temporarily and on terms as to
compensation, is also an option being investigated, despite
resistance from local landholders. The world's people, it not
governments, out to be able to assist to resolve these problems.
13. Although Bangladesh has many technically trained people, there
appear to be areas where the skills which they can produce need
supplementation. These include people experienced in camp planning
and construction, water research and supply, childern's education,
care and recreation, and some areas of healthe servicing.<pp.59>
/* ENDREPORT */