ACFOA REPORT ON ROHINGYAS, AUG-95:

[uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: ACFOA REPORT ON ROHINGYAS, AUG-95: HR-SUB 36.

/* posted Mon 1 Jul 12:00am 1996 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* -------------" ACFOA report on Rohingyas, Aug 1995 "-------------- */
[Following report by acfoa is from Human rights sub-committee report by 
the australian parliament, vol 6; published 5 September 1995.--U Ne Oo]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR OVERSEAS AID

17 August 1995

The Hon Roger Price, MP,
Chairman Human Rights Sub-committee
JSCFADT
C/O Margaret Swieringa
Burma Inquiry
Parliament House
Canberra

Dear Mr Price,

I  would  like to raise several concerns with you about the repatriation of
Burmese  Muslims  or  Rohingya  from  Bangladesh  to  Burma.   AusAid   has
contributed  $2.5  million  since  1991-92  towards this UNHCR repatriation
programme.

AusAid in its November 1994 submssion to  the  INquiry  into  Human  Rights
Abuse  in  Burma,  held by the Human Rights Committee of the Joint Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, made reference to concerns
about the repatriation. Evidence collected since then by the NGOs  Medicins
Sans  Frontieres  (MSF)  and  the  US  Committee  for  Refugees(USCR)  have
heitghtened ACFOA's concern that the repatriation process has been far from
transparent and that refoulment is occurring.

The repatriation process has been fraught with difficulty from  the  outset
with  UNHCR withdrawing from the process in December 1992 in protest at the
Government of Bangladesh's(GOB) use of coercion and lack of respect for the
voluntary  nature  of  the  repatriation.  IN  May  1993  a  Memorandum  of
UNderstanding  was  signed between the UNHCR and the GOB to allow the UNHCR
to carry out its mandate. However in  December  1993  the  UNHCR  announced
plans  for  mass repatriation of the  refugees  and  since  July  1994  gas
abandoned  individual  interviwes  with family heads and replaced them with
mass registrations and information sessions.

UNHCR maintain that these informaiton sessions, some of which are conducted
over a loud speaker in the camps are adequate. MSF and the USCR allege that
these information sessions have provided an indequate level of  information
to  the refugees and that refugees report feeling confused and pressured to
leave.

In March 1995, MSF conducted a survey of 15 camps and  found  that  65%  of
refugees  interviewed  were unaware of their right/possibility of deferring
repatriation; 63% did not want to repatriate; 49% believed it too dangerous
to talk because of fears of repercussions from the GOB  authorities.  ACFOA
believes  that the result of this survey warrants serious concern about the
effectiveness of UNHCR's method. Further MSF and USCR  have  rased  serious
concerns about coercion applied by GOB authorities while UNHCR has produced
no  evidence  to  show that this pressure on the refugees has substantially
diminished.

ACFOA believes that the refugees under the current UNHCR  repatriation,  do
not  have  the necessary information available to make an informed decision
to repatriate.

ACFOA points out that these allegations, if true,  violate  the  spirit  of
UNHCR's  own  EXCOM  resolution  which  stress  the  voluntary character of
repatriation (EXCOM, conclusion n.418 xxxi Voluntary Repatriation) and  the
need  for  the refugees decision to be facilitated by necessary information
regarding conditions in the country of origin and with the refugees  freely
expressed with (EXCOM conclusion no.40 xxxvi Voluntary Repatriation.)

Secondly,  UNHCR,  the  GOB  and  SLORC have not provided evidence that the
situation within Arakan state has improved. A March 1995 UNHCR statement in
Geneva justified repatriation on the grounds  that  the  Rohingya  "are  no
longer singled out by any form of discrimination as a matter of policy."

ACFOA  contends that  this  justification  based  on an apparent absence of
systematic persecution or a change in  rhetoric  in  SLORC  policy  is  not
sufficient guarantee in itself for the safety of the returned refugees.

ACFOA  points  out that SLORC has made no "official policy" on human rights
abuses clear at the ASEAN post ministerial conference in 1994 and in teh UN
by denying that they occur despite all the evidence to the contrary.

ACFOA poites out htat in terms of policy the SLORC'S 1982  citizenship  law
which was enacted after the previous wave of "official" persecution against
the  Rohingya in 1979 effectively denies them citizenship. UNHCR's position
contradicts the report of the UN special rapporteur for MYanmar (Burma) who
noted in his report of 12 January 1995 (E/CN.4/1995/65) that this 1982  law
is applied in a manner which discriminates against the Rohingya.

UNHCR's position is to agree with SLORC that "Most Muslims of Rakhine state
(around  700  000  people)  are not entitled to citizenship under Myanmar's
citizenship laws" (UNHCR's Information Bulletin, June 1995,  p.4).  Further
UNHCR  maintains  that  prior  to  fleeing,  only  a  "few  returnees" were
citizens. UNHCR does not acknowledge the persecution of the Rohingya by the
military during the government's 1979 census  registration.  Three  hundred
thousand  Rohingya  fled to Bangladesh in that year and it is little wonder
that upon their  return,  they  did  not  submit  themselves  to  the  1982
Citizenship  registration campaign undertaken by the Government of Burma in
1982. Clearly there has been consistent systematic denial of the Rohingyas'
citizenship rights by the Burmese government since  1978-79  and  this  has
contributed  to  furhter  disregard  and  abuse  of  their  human rights in
subsequent years.

ACFOA's concern about the safety of the  returnees  is  heightened  by  the
March 1995 draft resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in
which Australia participated. The resolution expressed grave concern at the
violations  of  human  rights in Myanmar which remain extermely serious, in
particular the parctice of torture, summary and arbitrary execution, forced
labour, including forced  labour  abuse  of  women,  politically  motivated
arrests and detention, forced displacement of the population, the existence
of   important  restrictions  on  the  exercise  of  fundamental  freedoms,
including the freedom of expression and association and the  imposition  of
oppressive  measures  directed,  in  particular,  at religious and minority
groups.

UNHCR states that forced labour was one of the main reasons for the  forced
exodus  of  the Rohingya in 1992; it notes that compulsory labour continues
to be a nation wide practice under SLORC yet it accepts  SLORC  assuarances
that  corvee  labour  will be reduced to four days a month. ACFOA  finds it
unacceptable that a repatriation process should be  occurring  when  forced
labour  remains  at  UNHCR's  admission a current practice in Arakan state.
ACFOA would like to draw to the minister's attention a July 11, 1995 report
from Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, which alleges that two Rohingya were executed
by firing squad in Arakan for refusing to work on a military  project  (see
attached).

ACFOA  would  like  to  draw  to  your attention the allegation in the USCR
report that repatriated  refugee  women  were  forcibly  taken  from  their
parents  by the SLORC Border police and raped. The removal of the women was
under the auspices of a garment factories controlled by  the  Burmese  army
(see  USCR  report, p.16). Both of these allegations fall within the abuses
expressed in  the  UNCHR  draft  resolution.  Such  reports  belie  UNHCR's
assurances  that it "pays special attention to problems faced by members of
vulnerable groups which includes unaccompanied minors and single women".

ACFOA does not accept that the abuses  mentioned  above  can  be  taken  as
isolated  and points out that the presence of independent monitors of human
rights in Arakan state is almost totally lacking.  Further  allegations  of
restrictions on movement and forced labour are contained in the USCR report
(pp.16-18)   and   in   the   report   of  the  UN  special  rapporteur  to
Myanmar(Burma), UNGA resolutions and other reports  on  the  general  human
rights  situation  in  Burma  produced  by  Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch Asia.

ACFOA is concerned about the ability of UNHCR and its donors to  accurately
monitor  the  welfare  of  the  Rohingya  upon  their return to Arakan. Our
concern centres on UNHCR's ability to obtain information about the  welfare
of  the  Rohingya and secondly, UNHCR's willingness to make the information
it does have available to donors and concerned NGOs.

UNHCR is dependent  on  interpreters  provided  by  the  SLORC  to  monitor
conditions  in  Arakan.  UNHCR  personnel  are located in towns but not the
countryside where many abuses occur. Western  NGOs  and  other  sourced  of
independent   monitoring  are  absent  in  Arakan.  International  aid  for
re-integration is  disbursed  by  UNHCR  through  SLORC's  Immigration  and
Manpower agency. Thus the ongoing welfare of the Rohingya is dependent upon
the  same government which persecuted them as a matter of policy in 1991-92
and in 1978-79.

The level of information provided in  the  UNHCR  Information  Bulletin  is
strong on assurance but vague in regards to evidence and stands in contrast
to  the  detailed  concerns  provided in MSF reports and by the USCR. UNHCR
refused an MSF request for an independent survey to  assess  the  refugee's
level  of  awareness.  Subsequently,  MSF  and  partner  NGOs went ahead in
conducting the March 1995 Survey of Levels of Rohingya awareness.

ACFOA has raised some of these concerns in a letter  to  Australia's  UNHCR
representative on 4 July 1995. To date we have received no reply.

ACFOA is concerned that the UNHCR, the SLORC and the GOB have not responded
adequately  to the needs and security of the Rohingya and have participated
in refoulment. ACFOA is concerned that unless adequate measures  are  taken
for independent monitoring of returnee welfare, and a change in the SLORC's
citizenship laws, the Rohingya will continue to face persecution regardless
of the official statements made by SLORC to UNHCR.

Further  ACFOA  is  concerned  lest  these  same  inadequate  conditions be
replicated in any future repatriation of Burmese refugees on the Thai-Burma
border.

ACFOA is aware of Australia's Embassy to Burma having made a  recent  visit
to  Arakan  state  and  has  requested through The Minister for Development
Co-operation, Mr Gordon Bilney, htat the Embassy respond  to  the  concerns
raised here.

ACFOA has requested:

* that the Minister direct AusAID, a major funder of the UNHCR repatriation
program,  to  undertake inquiries with UNHCR about concerns and criteria of
safety in the repatriation program;

*that the Minister direct AusAID to encourage dialogue  between  UNHCR  and
MSF and other NGOs working with the Rohingya; and

* that the MInister urge AusAID as a major donor to raise these issues with
other  major donors to the UNHCR repatriation program, particularly Canada,
Japan, the USA and the UK.

ACFOA would appreciate the Inquiry considering the evidence presented  here
and  in  the  MSF  and  USCR reports and question AusAID, DFAT and UNHCR on
their response to these allegations during your next hearing. The  relevant
reports were forwarded to the INquiry in July.

We look forward the report of your Inquiry.

Yours sincerely
Sd. Janet Hunt
Executive Director.

Please find attached:
1. MSF reposts- a) Report, September 1994,
                b) Awareness Survey, March 1995,
                c) Report, May 1995.
2. USCR Report, March 1995.
3. UNHCR Information Bulletin, June 1995.
4. Reuters Report.