STATEMENTS
Refugee International
Burmese Rohingya in
Veronika Martin and Kavita Shukla are in
By June 30, 2003 the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) is planning a dramatic change in
its responsibilities towards the remaining 21,000
Rohingya refugees from Burma residing in two camps in
Cox’s Bazaar district of Bangladesh. The proposed plan
outlines an 18-month assistance program. The guiding
principle of the program is self-sufficiency within
local communities for refugees who do not opt for
repatriation by the proposed July 1 deadline, when
UNHCR plans to “disengage” from its role in normal
care for refugees, as well as from repatriations. The
plan for this “residual case load,” left over from the
influx of 250,000 Rohingya in the early 90s, proposes
providing skills training with the intention of
enabling refugees to become economically and socially
independent by the end of 2004.
The proposed plan raises numerous questions and
concerns regarding its feasibility and its impact on
the future welfare of the refugees from both a
humanitarian and protection standpoint. How well can
humanitarian assistance or protection be delivered if
the main organization mandated to assist and protect
this group distances itself from them?
Despite the lack of a formal response by the
Government of Bangladesh to UNHCR’s initial concept
paper and the lack of involvement of NGOs in
developing it, UNHCR is moving forward. As its first
step towards implementing the self-sufficiency
program, UNHCR has informed its partner NGOs that they
need to end their health and nutrition programs, which
are focused on children under ten and pregnant and
nursing women. The deadline for pulling out is July 1,
giving the two agencies that have been working with
Rohingya for more than ten years less than three
months to disassemble their programs. The purpose of
this request is purportedly to streamline health and
nutrition programs under the Civil Surgeon’s Office of
the Bangladeshi Ministry of Health (MoH).
Although UNHCR has proposed assistance to upgrade the
Civil Surgeon’s facilities and capacity, it has not
allotted enough time for adequate preparation.
Furthermore, the Civil Surgeon’s Office has no
previous experience conducting a therapeutic feeding
program. Hundreds of malnourished women and children
may lose access to any type of supplementary feeding.
Government authorities have themselves expressed
concern over their ability to take on this caseload
independent of NGO funding or expertise. One
Government health worker admitted, “The refugees will
suffer when the NGOs leave.” This view has been
confirmed by NGO health workers who explained that MoH
services are poor and that the Ministry is
understaffed. Even with NGO support, MoH workers
display a negative attitude towards the Rohingya,
which does not bode well for their ability to provide
effective care independently. As one NGO staff member
remarked, “At this stage a phase out is totally
inappropriate.”
Nutritional initiatives and water and sanitation
programs currently overseen by UNHCR and NGOs will
also be drastically reduced. Rates of chronic
malnutrition are already at unacceptably high levels
--- 53% for adults and 58% for children --- and the
planned reduction in services will only make the
situation worse. There is an inherent contradiction in
UNHCR’s attempts to reduce assistance and NGO presence
by “streamlining” while simultaneously expecting NGOs
to increase their self-sufficiency programs. No NGO or
UN partner has volunteered to fill the gap to initiate
self-sufficiency programs or take responsibility for
this “temporary integration” in the immediate future.
With UNHCR withdrawing from the provision of direct
assistance, the Government of Bangladesh has the
opening it needs to discontinue all social service
programs in the camps as part of a strategy to give
the Rohingya no choice but to return to Burma. One
camp official told RI that without UNHCR it is highly
unlikely that NGOs will be allowed to continue their
work. One concern is that the World Food Program (WFP)
might also be unable to continue distribution of basic
food rations. While the proposed UNHCR plan calls for
an increase in social services such as vocational
training and income generation, the Government has not
permitted such initiatives for fear of creating a
“pull factor” for other Rohingya in Burma. The
Government is unlikely to do so now, especially with
UNHCR setting an example by withdrawing their
assistance programs.
The UNHCR plan includes assistance to surrounding
communities and it may have been hoping that this
would serve as an enticement to the Government to
allow programs to continue. But given the unpopularity
of the Rohingya in Cox’s Bazaar district and
elsewhere, the Government will not want to be seen as
endorsing a plan that allows these refugees to receive
greater benefits or permission to stay. RI believes
that the solution the Government envisions is one of
ending the assistance program altogether once the
UNHCR and its traditional partners are removed from
camp-based assistance.
UNHCR moving ahead with its self-sufficiency plan
absent an agreement with the Government of Bangladesh
runs the risk of abandoning the refugees to a
situation where they end up with minimal or no
assistance. The reality of the proposed plan may be
that the Rohingya will be forced to go back home to a
country with a well-documented record of human rights
abuses and persecution of its Muslim minority, or face
living illegally in Bangladesh. As illegal immigrants
they are not allowed to own land, have access to
education and public health care, or enjoy the basic
rights granted to citizens of Bangladesh. As one local
authority stated, “Refugees cannot integrate with the
local people. They will have to take care of
everything for themselves. This is difficult in this
region when you don’t own property.” Cox’s Bazaar is
one of Bangladesh’s poorest and most depressed areas.
By UNHCR’s own criterion of fleeing a well-founded
fear of persecution, the Rohingya require assistance
and protection. Furthermore, their ability to survive
in humane conditions in the host country is
questionable. UNHCR is facing financial difficulties,
but RI questions whether this justifies the removal of
their responsibilities to the Rohingya. The Rohingya
face a dramatic deterioration in their situation if
the UNHCR phase out strategy does not uphold its
official mandate and obligation to provide assistance
and protection.
Refugees International, therefore, recommends that:
·
continue working until a cooperative strategy and
action plan have been developed that realistically
puts the refugees’ humanitarian and human rights
concerns at the forefront.
·
that a follow up program has been approved by the
Government of Bangladesh (GoB), has secured funding,
and provides for a monitoring role for UNHCR.
·
implementing refugee protection.
·
allow a strengthened NGO presence and independent
monitoring.
·
through qualified NGO partners during the proposed
self-sufficiency and integration program.