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

COMMUNICATION ON SITUATION OF ROHIN (r)



Subject: COMMUNICATION ON SITUATION OF ROHINGYAS (9/7/96) (repost)

/* 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 */