[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 */