[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

MSF REPORT ON ROHINGYAS, HR-SUB PP



Subject: MSF REPORT ON ROHINGYAS, HR-SUB PP 810-814.

/* posted Sun 30 Jun 6:00am 1996 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* -------------" MSF report on Rohingya (1-may-95) "------------- */

Following is the MSF's report on the repatriation of Rohingyas on
1-may-1995, which appears on Burma Human Rights reports submissions in
Volume 5. pp 810. -- U Ne Oo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MEDICINS SANS FRAONTIERES

MSF's  concerns on the repatriation of Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh to
Burma.

SUMMARY

Medicins  Sans  Frontieres  (MSF)  believes  that  the   Rohingya   refugee
repatriaiton  from  Bangladesh to Burma is not voluntary. The Rohingyas are
not well informed on their right of saying no to repatriation and access to
full and proper information on the human rights situation in their place of
origin Arakan in Burma is limited. The situation in Arakan has not  changed
fundamentally.

MSF  understands the UNited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR)
dilemma to repatriate refugees to a country where  the  situation  has  not
changed fundamentally. MSF wishes to raise awareness by questioning whether
the  new  UNHCR  policy of 'voluntary' repatriation of refugees to Burma is
the future international  standard  answer  to  repatriation?  The  applied
procedure  of  repatriation  weakens  the  position  of the refugees. Their
protection is at stake.

MSF wishes to continue dialogue with UNHCR and at the  same  time  put  the
discussion  with its fundamental question onto an international level. Does
the new policy fit the UNHCR mandate ?

MSF and other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) conducted an  awareness
survey amongst the Rohingya refugees. The surveys' outcome showed that many
refugees were not aware of their right to refuse being repatriated.

MSF gives 5 recommendations.

I BACKGROUND

Towards  the end of 1991 and beginning of 1992, more than 260,000 Rohingyas
fled into neighbouring Bangladesh by crossing the Naf river. In early 1992,
the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) invited international agencies to assist
the Rohingya refugees, because  of  the  deterioriating  health  conditions
among the refugees. Twehty refugee camps were set up south of Cox's Bazar.

The GOB looked at the Rohingya refugee presence as a short-term problem and
started  to  repatriate the refugees to Burma in September 1992. To protest
against the coercive activities of the GOB to force the refugees to return.
UNHCR  refused  to  assist  in  this  repatriation  process.   After   this
withdrawal, a one-year Memorandum of UNderstanding (MOU) was signed between
the  GOB  and  UNHCR  in  may  1993,  which  allowed UNHCR to carry out its
mandate. During that year, more than 50,000 reufgees were repatriated.

IN December 1993, UNHCR announced a  plan  for  mass  repatriation  of  the
Rohingya  refugees.  While  the  numbers of refugees returning remained low
during the first half  of  1994,  more  than  100,000  refugees  have  been
repatriated   since  September  1994.  Presently,  around  60,000  Rohingya
refugees remain in Bangladesh.

The Rohingya Muslim minority is perhaps  one  of  the  most  vulnerable  of
Burma's  ethnic  minorities.  Their reasons to flee their original homes in
Arakan range from increased militarisation, destruction of village,  forced
labour, confiscation of land, to degrading an inhumane treatments.

The  Rohingya received refugee status as a group, based on the existence of
prima facie elements of the refugee definition pertaining to a well-founded
fear of persecution.

Presently, little information is available about what is happeinin  to  the
Rohingyas  living  in  Arakan.  The human rights situation in Arakan is not
very well documented yet. The UN special rapporteur for Myanmar (Burma) and
international human rights agencies such as Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch Asia continuously report human rights abuses throughout Burma,
such as forced labour, restrictions on the freedom  of  movement,  as  well
other serious human rights violations.

In  his  report  of  12  January  1995  (E/CN.4/1995/65),  the  UN  special
rapporteur notes that the 1982 citizenship law is applied in a manner  that
it has discriminatory effects on racial and ethnic minorities, particularly
the Rakhine (Arakan) Muslim population.

IN  NOvember 1993, UNHCR signed also a memorandum of understanding with the
Burmese government. This MOU laid down a basis for UNHCR to start a mission
in Arakan. Through being present in Arakan, UNHCR is able  to  monitor  the
situation  of  the  returnees.  IN 1994, UNHCR invited humanitarian NGOs to
come to Arakan. Subsequently, two NGOs decided to work  under  the  UNHCR's
umbrella.  UNHCR  increased its international staff from 5 to 10 and at the
beginning of 1995 to 25 expatriate staff in Burma.


II UNHCR

APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

According  to  the  Statue  of  the  Office  of  the  United  Nations  High
Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR is mandated to protect and assist refugees
and to find permanent solutions to their problems.

The Executive Committee (EXcom) of UNHCR recognized voluntary  repatriation
as  the  most  appropriate  solution  to  refugee problems and stressed the
essential  voluntary  character  of  repatriation  (conclusion  no.18  xxxi
Voluntary  repatriation).  The  Excom  also  recognized  that the refugees'
decision to repatriate should be facilitated by the  necessary  information
regarding conditions in the country of origin. The repatriation should only
take  place at the refugees' freely expressed wish (Excom conclusion no. 40
xxxvi Voluntary Repatriation).

According to the 1951 Convention relating  to  the  status  of  refugee,  a
refugee  is  a  person having a well founded fear of persecution because of
his race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or  political
opinion  (article 1). It is prohibited to return a refugee to the frontiers
of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened (article  33).
Therefore,  before  a  refugee is repatriated to his country of origin, the
conditions in that country should have changed fundamentally,  so  that  he
believes that his well-founded fear of persecution has been removed.

UNHCR POLICY

In  Bangladesh,  UNHCR  initially  adhered with the consent of the GOB to a
policy of private interviewing  a  3  camps  to  determine  the  individual
refugee's  willingness  to  return.  Therewith the UNHCR had a mechanism to
establish voluntariness. In JUne 1994 the GOB gave permission to the  UNHCR
to  start  individual  interviewing  in  all camps. UNHCR found out the one
test-run camp that 23% of the refugees wanted to be repatriated.

IN July 1994, UNHCR suddenly changed its policy. The  agency  changed  from
information  sessions  to  promotion  of  repatriation,  stating  that  the
situation in Burma is "conducive for return". The willingness to repatriate
allegedly increased to about  95%.  UNHCR  also  abandoned  the  system  of
private  interviewing  and  implemented  a  system of mass registration for
voluntary  repatriation.  According  to  UNHCR's  figure,  out  of  175,000
refugees  who  went  for  registration, more than 167,000 refugees expresed
their wish to be  repatriated.  By  going  for  registration  the  refugees
volunteered for repatriati9on.

UNHCR   stated  that  the  voluntary  character  of  the  repatriation  was
guarantied by including so called safety-nets in the system.  Refugees  who
still  have  valid  reasons related to a well-founded fear for persecution,
could bring their cases to the UNHCR. According to UNHCR,  the  safety-nets
would give the refugees the opportunity to refuse being repatriated: (1) at
every moemnt to the UNHCR (2) during a so-called re-verification system and
(3) at the departure point.

To  substantiate  their  statement that the situation in Burma is conducive
for return, UNHCR stressed its presence in Burma and free access to Arakan.
UNHCR claims to have good contacts with the Burmese authorities. The agency
states that it has access to prisons to visit detained returnees  and  that
it  is able to monitor the returnees in Arakan. Moreover, UNHCR claims that
they could not find any confirmed case of harassment of returnees.

On 23 March 1995, delegates of an UNHCR mission from Geneva stated during a
meeting in Cox's Bazar  that  this  system  of  voluntary  repatriation  is
different  but  that  it is carried out in safety and dignity: different in
the sense that the situation inArakan did not change totally. Moreover, the
mission stated that "the Rohingyas are no longer singled out by any form of
discrimination as a matter of policy."

III MSF'S POSITION

MSF favours voluntary repatriation of refugees. The  organization  believes
repatriation  should  be  voluntary and be conducted in safety and dagnity.
MSF believes, however,  that  the  present  repatriation  of  the  Rohingya
refugees is  not voluntary. the refugees are not fully informed in order to
enable refugees to have a free choice. MSF is seriously concerned  that  it
may not be safe for refugees to return to Burma.

LEVEL OF INFORMATION

Firstly,  we  believe that the system applied by UNHCR does not guarantee a
voluntary repatriation. MSF and other international  NGOs  have  repeatedly
asked  UNHCR  about  the  level  of  information  to  the  refugees  on the
possibility of refusing to be repatriated and on the conditions in  Arakan.
We  learnt from the refugees that they were confused about the consequences
of  the  mass  registration:  did  registration   mean   volunteering   for
repatriation ?

In  a joint effort all NGOs have made a number of practical recommendations
to UNHCR to improve the information dissemination such as the  availability
of  UNHCR  staff  in  the  camps.   the improvement of the quality of UNHCR
contacts with the refugees an informationleaflet on  the  repatriation  and
conditions  in  Arakan  and the involvement of NGOs in precedure related to
the repatriation process.

UNHCR agreed to implement some of these measures, but this led to  marginal
improvement  only:  for  example,  the reverification system - to check the
refugees' ability to return - was only made private by the start  of  April
1995.   Before  that  date  these sessions were public and jointly executed
with governmental camp authorities. Other NGO recommendations were  refused
by  UNHCR  such  as an independent survey to  assess the refugees' level of
awareness regarding the repatriation and  the  issuing  of  an  information
leaflet.

After the refusal, MSF, in close cooperation with the other (international)
NGOs  decided  conduct  a  survey  on 15 March in eleven refugee camps. The
results of this survey show  that  many  of  the  refugees  -  65%  of  the
interviewed   refugees   (412   families)   are  still  not  aware  of  the
right/possibility of refusing repatriation. 61% of the interviewed refugees
declared having concerned  regarding the repatriation of which  48%  stated
stated  that  they could not express these concerns. Out of this group, 49%
believes it to be too  dangerous  to  talk.  Only  9%  of  the  interviewed
refugees  are willing to return because they consider Burma to be safe now.
While 63% of the reufgees do not want to repatriate.

In analysing the survey's result, we conclude that the refugees do not have
the necessary information available to take an well-considered decision  to
repatriate.  Moreover,  we  believe the many of refugees lost confidence in
UNHCR after its sudden policy change. For many of the  refugees,  it  seems
that  UNHCR  and  GOB have the same position: it is time for them to return
their home country.  Consequently,  the  refugees  seem  to  be  afraid  to
communicate their concerns repatriation to UNHCR.

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES

Secondly,  MSF  questions  that the Rohingyas no longer have a well-founded
fear of  persecution  in  Burma,  since  MSF  believes  that  there  is  no
fundamental change of circumstances in Burma.

As stated above, the UN special rapporteur for Myanmar (Burma) has noted in
his  report  of January 1995 (E/CN.4/1995/65) that the 1982 citizenship law
is applied in a manner which  the  discriminatory  effects  on  the  Arakan
Muslim  population.  Although the Rohingya are not the only ethnic minority
deprived from citizenship in Burma, MSF believes it difficult to  reconcile
the different observations of UNHCR and the UN special rapporteur regarding
policies  on  discrimination.  On the basis of above mentioned human rights
organizations reports, MSF concludes that the human  rights  situation  has
not improved.

MSF  is even more concerned about UNHCR's claim that its presence in Arakan
its monitoring of returnees and access to prisons, as well as  the  absence
of confirmed cases of harassment of returnees alleged by UNHCR would amount
to  a  fundamental change of circumstances as required. Furthermore, MSF is
concerned about what will happen upon UNHCR's departure: a fear  shared  by
the  UNHCR. Even continued international monitoring is not a guarantee that
human rights abuses will not occur. this applies again and especially  once
the UNHCR leaves Arakan.

FUTURE POLICY

Lastly,  MSF  fears  that UNHCR's policy of repatriation in the case of the
Rohingya refugees creates a precedent and sets new  standard  critiria  for
future   repatriations   to   countries   where  a  fundamental  change  of
circumstances  has  not  taken place. the case of the rohingya repatriation
would serve as an experiment. MSF does not know why UNHCR has  changed  its
policy.  However,  GOB  pressure  on  UNHCR to repatriate may be one of the
reasons.

In this new policy for repatriation, UNHCR seems to replace the element  of
voluntariness  by  the elements of safety and dignity. We believe, however,
that safety and dignity are  complementary  to  the  esstntial  element  of
voluntariness.

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

MSF  believes  that the repatriation of Rohingyas is not voluntary and that
the procedures set by the UNHCR do not guarantee that the refugees are able
to take a decision out of free will. MSF is concerned  that  the  UNHCR  is
trying-out  a  new  repatriation  policy  for countries where a fundamental
change of circumstances has not taken place. MSF questions if  this  policy
fits the statury UNHCR-mandate of voluntary repatriation.

Therefore, MSF recommends the following.

I. The UNHCR should put the present repatriation on hold, until 9
aprincipal safeguard for voluntariness i.e.) a system for private
interviewing is set up.

II. The UNHCR should ensure that the refugees are fully informed about
their options, including the right to refuse repatriation.

III. The UNHCR should ensure that the refugee have full information
available on the situation in Burma and that the repatriation is free from
any constraint.

MSF believe that the level of information of the refugees on the fight of
saying no and information on the human rights situation in Burma may be
facilitated by the issuing of a leaflet containing this information. Visits
of refugees to Burma to inform themselves on the situation there without
such visits automtically involving loss of refugee status - could also be
of assistance in this regard.

IV. The UN special rapporteur on ths situation of human rights in (MYanmar)
Burma should closely monitor what happens to the returned Rohingyas and
report on their human rights situation.

V. The Executive Committee of the UNHCR should review the present system
for repatriation of the Rohingya refugees and determine whether this system
is fully in accordance with the UNHCR - mandate.

Medicins Sans Frontieres.
Amsterdam Paris, 1 May 1995.

/* Endreport */