[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
9/7/1996 REGARDING ROHINGYA EXODUS
Subject: 9/7/1996 REGARDING ROHINGYA EXODUS (FOR INFORMATION)
** NB: Rebroadcasting this article for information **
/* written 15 Jul 6:00am 1996 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* ------------" Communication on Rohingyas (9/7/96) "-------------- */
Subject: Communication on Situation of Rohingyas (9/7/96)
Distr: reg.burma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, WWW
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~uneoo
PROBLEM OF REFUGEES AND THE REFUGEE PROBLEM
In a recent information from Reuters, there has been continuing movement
of displaced people from Arakan State into Bangladesh. The international
community is still un-sure about how to handle the new influx of Rohingyas:
should they be treated as refugees who have a 'well founded fear of
persecution' or to be treated as the so-called 'economic migrants'.
Such new influx also poses dilemma on refugee agencies, whether to give
protection and assistance to the new comers.
Although one cannot make entirely accurate judgment (i.e. needs further
independent reports) from single piece of information that has received,
the root causes of displacement for the newcomers appears to be distinct
from the influx of 1992. From the Amnesty Report on Rohingyas in 1992,
that posted recently to the net, it is clear that the root cause of 92's
influx has been the state-organized expulsion of Rohingyas. In this context,
the forced labour, which combined with the use of terror, was employed
by SLORC as a measure to flee Rohingyas-Muslim from Burma.
This new influx in 1996, however, is not caused by such a state organized
expulsion of Rohingyas. The root causes seems to be that (1) the widespread
use of forced labour by the government and (2) the economic desperation
of the general populace. One needed to be noted that the forced labour in
Arakan, now a day, is not targeted particularly to the Rohingyas - in
contrast to forced porterage, etc. occurred in 1992. Furthermore, the
circumstances that has caused economic pressure upon these displaced
Rohingyas, such as informal taxation and forced procurement of crops,
are not uncommon incidents in Burma.
The root causes of the new influx to Bangladesh, therefore, are mixture
of economic desperation that combined with repression inside Burma. Such
cases of displacement are not new: the more than 300,000 displace Burmese
in Thailand may considered to be in the same category. It is evident that
the protection of serious human rights violations (such as rape, unlawful
detention and torture, extrajudicial executions) in order to prevent such
refugee influx is inadequate, but consideration need to be made of
development issues and also of reforms on the practice of taxation
and forced labour.
Issues on development and reforms on various institutions are inevitably
more complex and not suited to be left the UNHCR and humanitarian agencies
alone to solve. The solution will require the cooperation from all
political forces and efforts are needed to tackle simultaneously
throughout Burma.
Currently, it has been reported that the Karen National Union negotiation
team is again holding ceasefire talk with SLORC. While awaiting the
results of the talk and before organizing any appropriate action, one
can look a little closer at the repatriation of Rohingyas and international
response so far.
The Focus:
Problem of refugees or The refugee problem?
In the past year, we have seen 4-contributors to the issue on the
repatriation of Rohingyas: 1. US Committee for Refugees' report on March
1995; 2. Medecins sans Frontieres reported on January and May 1995;
3. UN High Commissioner for Refugees on July 1995; and 4. ACFOA and
other NGOs reports from Australia. Although the USCR and MSF has now in
agreement with UNHCR about repatriation, as has been reported by the
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs' Human Rights Submission on
8 August 1995, few of the issues that caused disagreement between those
Agencies should be examined.
Initial efforts on humanitarian concerns
Attempts to provide humanitarian aid to people inside Burma were made
in 1992 by International Council of Voluntary Agency. In August-September
of that year, Mr Russel Rollason, the Chair of ICVA, with 3 other
persons have visited Burma to assess the humanitarian needs of people
inside Burma. At that time, the anti-SLORC feelings amongst the
pro-democracy groups within Australia and elsewhere has been strong
and therefore any efforts that perceived to be legitimizing the
military regime in Burma were vigorously opposed. Whether these
protests by someother Burmese support groups have discouraged these
NGOs to proceed further in that direction, I personally was much
appreciative of such humanitarian considerations. Continued efforts
were thus made since then in order to fulfill these NGOs aspiration
to provide humanitarian aid to the people inside Burma. The efforts
for repatriation of refugees to Burma is, therefore, to be interpreted
-- to some degree -- as initiative to provide humanitarian aid to the
people inside Burma.
Involvement of NGOs in any such operation will inevitably be complex
politically. From the SLORC's perspective, the NGOs are always welcomed
to operate in Burma if that provide some international respectability
to the military administration. This point, in fact, is un-acceptable
to the Burmese democrats. It is therefore necessary to formulate strategy
to provide aid to the people of Burma without giving legitimacy to the
military government.
>From my view, it therefore necessary for NGOs to work in partnership
with UNHCR. Although the NGOs proved to be efficient in providing
humanitarian aid to the people in needs, they will not be able to get
proper access to grassroots without the help of the UN.
Global Refugee Policy shift
Whether it may be possible to generalize the phenomenon to the
international level, there has been certain disquiet about the UN
repatriations at the grassroots NGOs.The UNHCR, however, have to take
various new approaches in solving refugee problems since 1990.
The grassroots NGOs, which I have been in contact with since earlier
years, however, doesn't seem to have taken notice of the changing
policy trends. The usual focus of grassroots NGOs to refugee problem
was the resettlement to the third countries - in which it does solve
the problem of individual refugees. At present, the proportion of
resettlement for global refugee population found to be merely 0.3%.
Though it may be small in numbers, the refugee advocacy groups have
rarely ventured to look issues beyond resettlement, except for the
protection in country of asylum and the care for humanitarian needs
in refugee settlements. Such approach of NGOs said to be exiled-oriented
refugee policy, which does provide solution to the problem of
individual refugee.
A refugee problem may be solved, in theory, when the problem of all
individual refugees have been solved: such as making resettlement for
all refugees to a third country. When total number of refugees is large,
such as in the case of 260,000 Rohingyas, the third country resettlement
is simply not a viable option. When one look at refugee problems at
their source (i.e. country of origin), the roots of problems found to
be human rights and political in nature. Solving fundamental problem
and attacking the root causes, which now known as the homeland
(solution) oriented refugee policy, becomes the one that also promote
a durable solution for the refugees.
Uniqueness of Problems
The Medecins Sans Frontieres, in its report on May-1995, questioned the
policy consistency and the mandate of UNHCR in promoting repatriation
for Rohingyas. It also suggest that the fundamental change of circumstances,
such as the change in 1982 Citizenship laws (or change of government ?),
are needed to ensure the voluntary repatriations. It also expresses fears
that such policy would set a precedence for future repatriations where
there has been no fundamental change of circumstances.
I believe that one important factor that must be taken into account in
examining refugee issue is the uniqueness of every refugee problem:
each refugee problem has its own characteristics, causes and consequences
that requires a specific device and approach for solution. Even amongst
the refugees from Burma, the situation have been varied: while the
flight of Rohingyas were caused by state-organized expulsion, other
Burmese refugees in Thailand and elsewhere are caused, mainly, by ethnic
and political oppression. Therefore different approach is required for
Rohingyas.
The main cause of influx for Rohingyas in 1992 found to be the SLORC's
attempt to make political diversion. Once it was over, the situation has
returned to normal and it seem more conducive for majority to return.
So long as the Rohingyas are not singled out for persecution, better
to be living in their own residences in Burma.
Citizenship issue
The Citizenship issue is much more difficult to solve in countries such
as Burma. To redress the sort of legislative-discrimination against
non-indigenous Burmese, such as Indians and Chinese, would need much
more time and energy. Given the conservative attitudes towards migration,
no Burmese are going to take this sort of issue lightly. It is certain
that these kind of issues could not be resolved overnight, even after a
democratic government come into power. Much further education in this
regards may be needed to tackle such an issue. My personal view is
that whatever the ethnicity may be differing - Rohingyas or Chinese or
Indians - the people who born in Burma do have a strong attachment to
its people and the land and therefore should be given the citizenship.
Political Realities
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights have given us a guidance on
how one should treat another in respect and with dignity within our
human family.It must also be taken as the guidance for treatment of
vulnerable group of person/persons - such as the refugees. When
addressing improvement to the situation of human rights, the first
important step is to identify - or make a list - of those human rights
predicament. This step must be - also can be - done in accordance
with our universal human aspirations for freedom and social justice
without reference made to race, religion and culture etc.
When we take a step further to improve the situation of human rights,
it is the politics that decide what we will achieve and what we may not
achieve at a certain stage. Unlike human rights objectives, which we
must make an idealistic goal, the political objective must be pragmatic
and realistic. Human rights situation can be and must be improved,
but only as much as the politics allowed it to. Politics is the reality;
and it is quite inflexible. The human rights objectives are, generally
speaking, to be taken as the long-term goal. But, to achieve that goal,
a small but certain and firm steps need to be made within the political
realities.
Protection of the rights of the refugees, which is a human rights goal,
is thus dictated by political realities. It may not be too far to look
beyond our own experience in the strife for protection of refugees from
Burma in order to see things in this perspective. We are not that
successful in protecting the rights of refugees. With the helps of one
"Debt-Ridden Organization" and the "Much-Poorer NGOs", we would barely
save refugees from the brutal hands of the governments. Current climate
suggests that if these refugees are not being forced to return or not
being manipulated to serve as pawns between governments (and the
businesses) - it can be considered as a great success. In the case of
Rohingyas, it has been much better off with getting the repatriation
organized than of them being forced back to Burma by governments'
bi-lateral agreements. So long as the life and security of refugees
are not adversely threatened by government actions, it considered to
have achieved the protection objectives.
In the world of international politics, no single organization is having
an absolute power. Each entities -- governments, United Nations, NGOs
and Groups including the refugees -- have to do in accordance with the
dictates of true politics. The refugees' rights to say 'no' to
repatriation must be seen in this light. Practically, there are no
other viable alternatives in longer-term: the resettlement has given
0.3% chance; to wait a change of government in Burma - it is hard to
put a number. If there is some way to have proper monitoring for the
majority of refugee populace, the homeland is the best one amongst
the evils. A balanced consideration need to be made about the refugees
resuming their usual life in their normal place of residence against
the hardships that have to face by living in the camps.
The issues of Rohingyas in Burma is also quite sensitive politically.
It therefore feel that the Rohingya issues are better be addressed
outside the dynamic of Burmese politics. Independent actions taken on
behalf of refugees must be understood as a reflection of such
considerations. The tendency to keep low publicity on Rohingya
refugee issues, of course, is not keeping them out of sight out of
mind, but it was necessary. This condition may progressively change
as general political situation in Burma gradually improves.
Refugee issues are undoubtedly emotional ones. The circumstances that
lead to the refugees leaving their homeland, the ways in which they
live in those squalid camps and the hardship they endured because of
an obviously simple protection needs; all of these are emotional issues.
Because of such sympathy refugee received, the most people and NGOs
are reluctant to look the repatriation as a solution in the first
place. Refugees, by its own nature of desperation, also look to any
possible option with a great deal of hope and enthusiasm. It is the
responsibility of everyone involved to tell the realities about the
longer-term options, and not to raise un-realistic hopes to refugees.
Ill-defined solutions may cause refugees of human sufferings like
Vietnamese boat people. (Such argument, of course, should not to be
used by the governments as a pretext to reduce their refugee intakes;
the governments can still be generous for refugees who aspired to make
resettlement. Point making here is that the solution for majority of
refugee population is the repatriation.)
Looking from a different perspective, the organized repatriation of
refugees can be seen as the empowerment to the refugees. The refugees
are empowered so that they can exercise their right to live in their
own country in peace with security (The term refugee in this paragraph
may be taken as the entire group of exiled-Burmese, although some high
spirited Burmese apparently do not wish to identify themselves as
refugees. :-). The refugee constitutes, as in the case of Burma,
a certain section of population who suffered from the most serious
violation of human rights by the government. As for Rohingyas,
the government employed state-sponsored expulsion as a deliberate
policy to oppress refugees. A policy against such government's
expulsion of its own population is the organized repatriation that
assisted and monitored by the international community. The repatriation
movements, therefore, represent the strife for the improvement of
human rights in Burma.
Fear of setting precedence
It is common practice amongst the professionals comparing the varying
treatment of refugees at the international level. I have seen (for
example, in a debate about whether Australia's detention of boatpeople
be a lawful practice) the comparisons were made between detention
practices of Rohingyas in Bangladesh to that of Burmese students
in Safe Area in Thailand with detention of Cambodian boatpeople in
Australia. Although the governments may surely look to less cumbersome
methods in dealing with refugee problems, it must not allowed the
governments to automatically copy these practices as an internationally
acceptable standards. When looking at any refugee problem, I would
think various factors such as uniqueness of the problems and the
political climate should be taken into account. Attitude for support
groups to be taken was that the willingness to strive for maximum
humane standard of treatment for refugees within a given political
realities.
New Influx and Problems at Grassroots Level
Recent events suggest that the central SLORC administration continuing
to lose its power. Therefore different approach may be needed to tackle
the human rights problem. When we seek for the improvement of the
situation in order to reduce the new influx, one will needs to look
at the problems occurring at the grassroots level. Although the SLORC
is an obvious source for causing human rights violations, it is
unlikely that the changes in behaviour of SLORC alone will make much
difference to the situation. One example is the forced labour.
The SLORC reportedly issued a secret directive in July 1995 to its
local LORCs to change the practice of forced labour(see the DFAT
report of Aug-95). However, existence of the continuing influx of
Rohingyas in this year is the proof that the SLORC does not have
good control of its local administrations. One may certainly need
to look at the local LORC level if we are to successfully tackle
the problems.
Cases of the confiscation of properties - such as the soldiers living
off the villagers property in Karen state - can mainly be the problems
at grassroots level. We continuously noticed the cases of the soldiers
taking basic food items, etc from villagers as early as 1994, in Karen
Human Rights Groups reports. One report from ABSL/FTUB in India is so
far as to suggest that the SLORC's foot-soldiers have to "buy" their
own uniforms. It shows that the SLORC soldiers are not receiving good
supply from the government and therefore causing such violations.
These cases, again, are the problems at grassroots level which the
SLORC possibly cannot control easily.
Forcible procurement of rice and other primary products is another
form of problem which must tackle at the grassroots. Surely, the
SLORC's political ambition (i.e. to make a show off and boasted upon
how much rice has been produced under its administration) is main
source of problem. However, the enforcement to such an unrealistic
objectives without due consideration given to farmers may found to
be the local LORC personnel (recent BurmaNet report about the situation
of farmers in Irrawaddy Delta). This kind of problem require to be
tackled at the grassroots level.
The restriction of movement placed upon Rohingyas may also be limiting
their ability to search for work in Arakan. This is another factor which
causing economic pressure upon Rohingyas, most of whom are land-less
day labourers.
The harassment made on the movement of National League for Democracy
seems to have occurred at the grassroots level. Petty-minded hostilities,
such as harassment on landowners who lease office space for NLD,
seems to be the grassroots problem. Such cases sometimes leads to
tragic consequences for the members of the community. This kind of
harassment may however be reduced if there is reconciliation at the
higher-level.
Possible direction
Although it may seem too modest in terms of mordern governments agendas,
the protection of above mentioned violations can significantly improve
the life of Burmese population. Recent policy direction given by the NLD
include the agenda for reform on taxation and purchase of primary crops.
These NLD agenda are in consonant with our protection needs to reduce
the influx of displaced people. The empowerment to the elected
representives was thus suggested to enact and to enforce required
legislation. This particular step should be taken if current
ceasefire agreement and political settlement being completed successfully.
In sum, protection of serious rights violation as a solution for the
refugees and displaced people is no longer adequate - as recent case
of Rohingyas suggests. One has to look at the community development
issues that must be implemented together with democratic institution
building tasks. These protection initiatives will fall into a broader
spectrum of human rights, i.e. Social, Economic and Cultural rights.
Ironically, it is the SLORC who try to fend itself off from the
international community's criticism about human rights by saying
"human rights encompass [not only civil and political rights, but]
economic and social rights. .... In our consideration....take into
account all aspect of human rights". It remains to be seen how much
the SLORC be willing to co-operate -- or becoming an obstacle -- to
build peace and progress for all people of Burma.
References
1. Amnesty International, May 1992, Union of Myanmar(Burma):
Human rights violations against Muslim in Rakhine (Arakan) state.
AI Index ASA:16/06/92.
2. UN General Assembly reports 1990: Note on International
Protection submitted by High Commissioner, A/AC.96/750, 27 August 1990.
3. UN High Commissioner for Refugees, The State of the World's
Refugees 1995: In Search of Solutions, Oxford University Press.
4. US Committee for Refugees, 'Repatriation of Rohingyas:
voluntary or refoulement', 15 March 1995.
5. Medicine Sans Frontieres report, May 1995.
6. UNHCR Information Bulletin, Repatriation to Myanmar, July 1995.
7. Australian Council for Overseas Aid, 17 August 1995; February 1996.
8. Australian Parliament Human Rights Sub-Committee publications, #36, Vol.5,
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 8 August 1995.
Date: 26 Jun 1996 15:50:28
ASIA: NEW BURMESE REFUGEES
POSE DILEMMA FOR UN AGENCY
BANGLADESH INFLUX (FEATURE)
By Alistair Lyon of Reuters
TEKNAF, Bangladesh, Reuter - Amid lush green fields in sight of surf
pounding in from the Bay of Bengal, Jafar Ahmed explained why life in
Burma had become unbearable.
"Twenty days before we left our village of Inn Chaung,
the military took me for forced labour," he said. "They said it was
for 10 days, but they kept me for 16."
"They tax us and make us give donations, such as logs, to
their requirements. If we can't pay, they take us to a Nasaka (border
force) camp and torture us."
Ahmed, a 40-year-old labourer, said he had once spent 24
hours with his legs held in wooden stocks at a Nasaka camp.
The Rangoon military government has long denied reports
of ill-treatment of minority Muslims, or Rohingyas, in its impoverished
northern province of Rakhine.
Now Ahmed, his wife and three children are part of a group
of six families sheltering in a hut on a Bangladeshi peninsula
separated from their homeland by the broad Naf River.
They arrived in April after paying 500 kyat (about $A4.60)
or seven times a day labourer's wage) a head for passage, including
bribes to Nasaka border troops to look the other way.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates
that 5,500 Rohingyas have fled to Bangladesh since March, while other
relief agencies say there may be up to 10,000.
The influx is something of an embarassment for the UNHCR,
trying to meet its target of repatriating the last 50,000 of 250,000
Rohingyas who fled to Bangladesh in 1991 and 1992.
The UN agency, keen to anchor the 200,000 returnees to
their villages and head off any fresh exodus, fears that any move
to help the newcomers would spur others to follow.
"If we give food to this group, we'll attract 50,000 more
the next day," UNHCR representative Canh Nguyen-Tang told Reuters in
Dhaka. "We don't want to create a 'pull' factor."
Yet the hardships cited by Ahmed and other new arrivals
appear identical to those claimed by their fellow-Rohingyas who were
accepted as refugees after the original mass flight.
Bangladesh, at first unwilling to admit the existence of
any newcomers, now says they are illegal immigrants fleeing poverty,
not persecution, and must be deported.
UN officials said economic conditions for Rohingyas,
mostly uneducated farm workers, had worsened after a cyclone in
November cut rice output by up to 20 per cent. Rangoon helped push
up prices by demanding the same rice tax as before.
"This two-way traffic of influx and repatriation has created
a very odd situation," said Dick van der Tak, representative of the
medical relief agency Medecins sans Frontieres.
"We're afraid that if everyone classifies them as economic
migrants, we'll lose sight of the context - the reasons for their
poverty and the whole human rights situation in Burma."
The UNHCR, yet to define its policy on the newcomers,
hopes that its staff stationed in mainly Buddhist Burma's neglected
Rakhine province can intercede with its military rulers to ease the
plight of Rohingyas and encourage them to stay put.
"We have organised an information campaign asking people
to return to their villages of origin and contacted the authorities
to provide transport back home," Tang said.
He argued that compulsory labour, while an issue of great
concern to the UNHCR, did not count as persecution of Rohingyas
because it was prevalent throughout Burma.
At the same time, he said, Rohingyas are not recognised
as full citizens, but only as "residents" of Burma. And they do not
have freedom of movement, needing permission from the military
authorities if they want to leave their home villages.
The 50,000 remaining refugees live under UNHCR protection
in camps run by Bangladeshi officials. They may not work, or leave
the camps without permits, but are relatively secure.
The new arrivals must seek shelter where they can and are
vulnerable to summary deportation and abuse.
In April, an attempt by a river patrol of the paramilitary
Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) to force a boatful of incoming Burmese back
across the river ended in disaster.
The boatman jumped overboard in the dark, the drifting
boat capsized after getting tangled in fishing nets and 15 people -
five women and 10 children - drowned.
Anjuma, a 12-year-old Rohingya girl who arrived in the
second week of May, said she had been gang-raped by three BDR soldiers
who had previously ordered her family and six others staying in a
village near Teknaf to return to Burma.
An examination by a doctor working for an international
relief agency appeared to confirm sexual assault.
Major Lal Mohammad at BDR headquarters in Teknaf said a
military investigation was under way. "If it is true that our soldiers
were involved, they will be punished," he added.
REUTER bwl
REUTERS: UN RIGHTS MONITOR FOR BURMA RESIGNS June 29, 1996
Yozo Yokota, a Japanese professor has resigned from his post as the
U.N. human rights monitor for Burma, U.N. spokeswoman Sylvana Foa
said onFriday.
Yokota will be replaced by Rajsoomer Lallah, an Oxford- educated
judge from Mauritius, who has frequently served on U.N. human rights
bodies and as a special rapporteur for the Geneva-based U.N. Human
Rights Commission.
U.N. sources said Yokota resigned because of planned career changes
in Tokyo as well as frustration at the lack of logistical support
from human rights staff in Geneva.
Yokota's reports over the past few years were responsible for
criticial General Assembly resolutions adopted against Burma's
military rulers, who took power in 1988 to suppress pro-democracy
movement and subsequently nullify elections.
/* Endreport */
.