Background
Arakan, the
homeland of the Rohingya Muslims and Rakhaing Buddhists, had been an
independent Kingdom until 1784 when it was conquered by the Burmese King
Budawpaya. Due to oppression and maltreatment
by Burmese soldiers, large number of inhabitants of Arakan, both Rohingya
Muslims & Rakhaing Buddhists, fled to neighbouring Bangladesh. Historically this may
be called the First Exodus of
Arakanese.
Burmese
King Budawpaya died in 1819. In 1825-26 British East India Company defeated
Burmese military and occupied Arakan. After British occupation of Arakan many
of the Rohingya and the Rakhaing returned to their homeland in Arakan. Others
preferred to settle in Bangladesh,
mainly in adjacent Chittagong,
Chittagong Hill Tracts, coastal areas of Noakhali & Barisal. It may be
noted that Rakhaing Buddhists are usually known as Magh. It is also important to mention that the vernacular of Arakan
since time immemorial has been similar to Chitagongian dialect of Bengali
Language.
Under
British Colonial rule religious communalism and the culture of hatred
flourished throughout the sub-continent and Arakan was no exception. Burmese
nationalists exploited Buddhism to instigate communal violence against the Muslims
of Arakan. In 1942, a section of Arakanese Buddhists with the help of Burmese nationalists
carried out brutal mass killing of Muslims of Arakan. As a result about 100,000
of Muslims were killed and about 500,000 rendered homeless. About 80,000 fled to
Bengal and many of them took shelter in the Refugee camps of Chittagong and Rangpur. This may be called
the Second Exodus of Arakanese.
Soon after the independence of Burma on 4th
January 1948, the Burma Territorial Force (BTF) went on a rampage against
Muslim villages. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims were made homeless and nearly
50,000 were forced to leave and take shelter in the then East Pakistan. This may be called the Third Exodus of Arakanese.
The
Rohingyas once again faced repression and mass eviction in 1962 after General
Ne Win overthrew the Prime Minister U Nu and declared Burma a
socialist state to be ruled by the Burma Socialist Programme Party composed of
the army officers. Arakan was made a Buddhist-ruled federal state. General Ne
Win's sectarian policy made the conflict between the Buddhist Maghs and Muslim
ethnic groups even more acute. His racial discrimination and strong Burmese
chauvinist policy to suppress ethnic movements compelled several hundred
thousand Rohingyas to take refuge in the then East Pakistan. This may be called the Fourth Exodus of Arakanese.
In the past
three decades, there have been significant migrations, forced and voluntary, of
Arakanese Rohingyas to neighboring Bangladesh. The Fifth Exodus took place in 1978 when over 200,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh, following the ‘Nagamin’
(‘Dragon King’) operation of the Burmese army. Officially this campaign
aimed at “scrutinising each individual
living in the state, designating citizens and foreigners in accordance with the
law and taking actions against foreigners who have filtered into the country
illegally”.
This military campaign directly targeted civilians, and resulted in widespread
killings, rape and destruction of mosques and further religious persecution.
After international pressure the Burmese government allowed most of the
Rohingyas who had fled to Bangladesh
to return. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had a
presence in the refugee camps in Bangladesh
but not in the Rakhine
State, nor was it
involved in the repatriation process. The Roghinya refugees after being
repatriated to Arakan faced same situation that had forced them to flee. Meanwhile
Burmese government enacted the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law which was specifically
designed effectively to deny Rohingyas the right to a nationality. So most of those who were repatriated and
many more had no option but to silently flee Arakan and managed to migrate to
the Middle East, Pakistan
and South East Asia through Bangladesh.
During 1991-92 a new wave of over a quarter of as million Rohingyas fled
to Bangladesh
which may be called the Sixth Exodus
of Arakanese Rohingyas. They reported widespread forced labour, as well as summary executions, torture, and
rape. Rohingyas were forced to work without
pay by the Burmese army on infrastructure and economic projects, often under
harsh conditions. Many other human rights violations occurred in the context of
forced labour of Rohingya civilians by the security forces.
From the end of 1992 until early 1994 the Bangladeshi authorities, after
an understanding had been reached with the Burmese government, forcibly
repatriated some 50,000 Rohingyas across the border. After a formal Memorandum
of Understanding was signed between UNHCR and the Burmese government in
November 1993, UNHCR established a presence on the ground in Arakan to
implement the reintegration programme and to provide protection for the
returnees. UNHCR initiated a voluntary mass repatriation and reintegration
programme for the Rohingyas in April 1994. At the time international aid
agencies expressed concerns about whether this repatriation process was in fact
voluntary.
Despite the presence of UNHCR, Rohingyas continue to suffer from
discrimination on the basis of their ethnicity, and various restrictions and
abuses at the hands of the local Myanmar authorities. UNHCR has only
two expatriate staff in Arakan based in the townships of Maungdaw and
Buthidaung. Rohingya far away from these areas can not reach them due to travel
restrictions, and the agency’s local staff face intimidation from the Burmese
authorities and thus are generally not in a position to assist people facing
violations. A Rohingya man who was repatriated to Burma in 2003 and returned to
Bangladesh two years later to escape an arbitrary case told Refugees
International, “I believe that if I could reach UNHCR’s expatriate staff, and
have them investigate the problem I had been facing, local authorities would
have stopped harassing me and I would not have to leave everything behind and
flee to Bangladesh."
Although forced labour decreased since the UNHCR established a
protection role in Arakan, Rohingyas have been obliged to flee to other
countries through bordering Bangladesh
since they continue to be denied of nationality and essential civil rights in Myanmar and often subjected to various forms of
persecution and abuses by Myanmar
security forces. The exact number of new arrivals since 1996 is not clear, but
is believed to be in the tens of thousands. The Government of Bangladesh has
denied these new arrivals access to the refugee camps and has not permitted
UNHCR to extend protection to them.
The mass repatriation of Rohingyas to Arakan by UNHCR took place from
April 1994 to December 1995. Since that
time repatriation has slowed down. To
date a total of 236,000 Rohingyas have returned to Arakan from Bangladesh. Almost
24,000 Rohingyas are still in Kutapalong and Nayapara, the two remaining
refugee camps in Cox’s Bazaar, southern Bangladesh. During 2003 some 3,000 Rohingyas were
repatriated to Burma amid
reports of the Bangladesh
authorities coercing some of them to return. Medecins sans Frontières (MSF) Holland received 550 complaints from
Rohingya families varying from intimidation to direct threats of violence if
they did not agree to return to Burma.
Citizenship
of the Rohingyas in Burma
Although the Rohingya people were
not recognised as one of the native peoples of Burma by the 1947 Constitution, they were nonetheless granted citizenship.
A citizen of the Union was defined as:
“every
person who was born in any of the territories which at the time of his birth
was included
within His Britannic Majesty’s dominions and who resided in any of the territories
included within the Union for a period of not
less than eight years in the ten years
immediately preceding the date of the commencement of this Constitution or immediately
preceding 1 January 1942 and who intends to reside permanently therein and who
signifies his election of citizenship of the Union in the manner and with the
time prescribed by law.”
Worried about Indian immigration to
Burma,
the Burmese government had quickly changed its mind and promulgated a new law
on citizenship in 1948, restraining the definition given in the Constitution.
Individuals who did not belong to native peoples recognised as national, had to
be “from ancestors who for two generations at least have all made any of the
territories included within the Union their
permanent home and whose parents and himself were born in any such territories.”
According to the law, all the country’s residents had to register within twelve
months in order to obtain an identity card. Many Rohingyas obtained citizenship
then, which enabled them to vote during the decade of democracy (1950-62). However,
after the coup d’état, the recognition of Rohingya children as Burmese citizens
became harder and harder. With “the Burmese way to socialism”, Ne Win took a
nationalist turn, affirming in particular that ethnic minorities – even the
non-rebel ones – represented a danger to Burmese unity. It was thus within a
somewhat difficult context that a new Constitution was proclaimed in 1974.
Twenty-seven articles detailed the fundamental rights and duties of citizens,
and served as the starting point for the future law on citizenship, promulgated
in 1982. Meanwhile, the authorities had launched the Nagamin Operation. Terrorised
by an identity control which turned into a manhunt, more than 200,000 Rohingyas
found refuge in Bangladesh.
The new law on citizenship was to be promulgated soon after the refugees’
return.
Even though the SPDC has stated that
in the government’s official records the Rohingya “are recognized as permanent
residents within Myanmar”,
the vast majority of Rohingyas fail to qualify for any of the three categories
of citizenship:
1. The
Rohingya are not considered to be a national ethnic group as provided by sec. 3
of the 1982 law, and members of the Rohingya population are therefore
ineligible for full citizenship.
2. Few
Rohingya who were eligible for citizenship under the 1948 Act and had
applied for citizenship under that Act, as required for the grant of associate
citizenship under the 1982 law. Most were reportedly unaware of the Act or
did not understand its importance at the time.
3. As to
eligibility for naturalized citizenship, few Rohingyas are in possession
of the necessary documents that would provide “conclusive evidence” of entry
and residence prior to 4 January 1948 or could establish the necessary
bloodlines as required by the law. While
to prove their residence they can use their family list, which names each
member of the household, the family list only indicates names of family members
and date of birth. It does not indicate
place of birth, which in effect prevents people from “furnishing conclusive
evidence” of birth in Myanmar
as required by the 1982 law. In any case, the wide
powers conferred on the Central Body mean that any theoretical entitlement to
citizenship may not be realised in practice.
Although
the 1982 law is also discriminatory towards the vast majority of the Indian and
Chinese population of Myanmar,
as the promulgation of this law took place soon after the Rohingyas who fled
during 1978 had been repatriated, some observers have suggested that this law
was specifically designed effectively to deny Rohingyas the right to a
nationality.
The 1982
Citizenship law has had the effect of rendering the vast majority of Rohingyas
ineligible to be Myanmar
citizens. The law also makes no provision in relation to stateless persons.
Under the 1982 law, very few
Rohingyas can become citizens, even naturalised or associate, notably because of
the material difficulty of providing legal proof of their
past residence in the country. Both its content and
its coincidence with the return of the refugees after the 1978 exodus tend to
indicate that the 1982 law was actually designed as a legal tool for the
exclusion of the Rohingyas. With the new law, all the inhabitants of the
country had to apply or re-apply for identity papers. The Rohingyas who had
obtained an identity card (National Registration Card, NRC) after 1948, were
forced to hand it back in order to be issued with new document under the new law.
Yet, a great many of them did not receive anything in return, nor did they get
their former cards back. To make
matters worse, for the Rohingyas who still had
a document, the identity cards handed out by the government
in 1989 not only indicated the name and place of residence of the holders, with
a picture, but also mentioned their religion and ethnic origin. Three colours
for the cards categorise the citizens: pink for the citizens, blue for the
associate citizens and green for the naturalised citizens. The Foreigners
Registration Cards, FRC, are white. Contrary to other «foreigners» in Burma (such as
the Chinese), the Rohingyas could not even obtain an FRC. In effect, the 1982
law makes the Rohingyas stateless. Deprived of any status, they are no longer legally
recognised by the Burmese authorities. It is a statelessness which obviously
has many consequences: inter alia, the
Rohingyas are not allowed to travel freely in the country, and can no longer
enter the public service; their access to higher education is limited. And in
conformity with the 1974 Constitution, as foreigners, they can not resort to
the judicial system (article 101 - f) and have no freedom of association
(article 158). The Rohingyas have lost all rights based on racial and religious
grounds.
It was agreed in the MoU that “after the necessary verification
the Government of Union of Myanmar will, with the assistance of the UNHCR,
issue to all returnees the appropriate identification papers” (point 4) - a
clause so vague as to carry no obligation whatsoever for the Burmese authorities
to grant citizenship to the Rohingyas. The only document the Rohingyas were
issued with was a family list, with an IMPD (later to become IPD) heading, merely
listing family members. It does not entitle them to any rights and on the
contrary, represents yet another means of controlling the population.
Buthidaung inhabitant
explains:
“Once a year, there is a census of the population. In
our village, it happens each year
between October and November after the rainyseason.
The Nasaka warns us a few days in advance of the control and checks if all
family members registered on the list are present. They [The Nasaka officers]
also take a picture of each family every year in order to control us better.
Names of the persons absent during the census are struck off the list. They
then are no longer allowed back in the village.”
In June 1995, the immigration department (IPD) finally
agreed to provide Temporary Registration Certificates (TRC) to all the Rohingya
population due to pressure from the UNHCR, who were rightly convinced that the denial
of citizenship represents the stumbling block to the integration of Rohingyas
into Burmese society.
These TRCs, though strangely based on two laws on residence
dating back to 1949 and 1951 which had been invalidated by the 1982 Law, were
granted to the population with no distinction between returnees and Rohingyas
who had remained in the country; according to the UNHCR, the TRCs are to be
considered as a first step towards citizenship. A barely noticeable first step,
though, since the TRC is clearly marked “not an evidence of citizenship”.
In 1998, General
Khin Nyunt, First Secretary of the SPDC, definitely put an end to the hopes
the UNHCR had - rightly or wrongly - fostered. On 5 February, in a letter to the High Commissioner, Ms.
Sadako Ogata, he wrote:
“Suffice it to say that the issue is essentially one
of migration, of people seeking greener pastures. These people are not
originally from Myanmar but have
illegally migrated to Myanmar
because of population pressures in their own country. There may have been
younger children who were born in Myanmar, but the previous
generations had crossed over to our country during the past decades. They are
racially, ethnically, culturally different from the other national races in our
country. Their language as well as religion is also different.”
Rohingyas still have no citizenship and still lack the
freedom of movement. As a direct consequence of the 1982 Law and the Foreigners’
Act (1940), whether they have a TRC or not, the Rohingyas do not enjoy any
freedom of movement outside their own villages. In order to leave their
village, they have to ask for a license (section 10, Foreigners’ Act) and
“every such license shall state the name of the person to whom the license is
granted, the nation to which he belongs, the district or districts through
which he is authorized to travel, and the period, if any, during which the
license is intended to have effect” (section 11). In order to move around in their township,
the Rohingyas have to ask the VPDC for a license. In order to go beyond their
township, they have to apply to the TPDC and, outside the district, to the
DPDC. Lastly, in order to get out of Arakan and go to the rest of the Union, they need an SPDC license. On the VPDC local level
as well as beyond, the demand is always passed on to the different
administrations in charge of the control of the population (Nasaka, Military
Intelligence, police, IPD...) each one of which has to give its agreement.
A North Buthidaung villager details the cost of his trip:
“To go to Sittwe, you have to get a license, valid for
fifteen days only and costing 3,000 Kyats. Once the head of the VPDC gives his authorisation,
you have to go to the Nasaka of Taung Bazar, and that’s another 1,500 Kyats, then
you go to the Immigration department of Buthidaung – another 1,500 Kyats. On
board, you will have to give 500 Kyats to the police – a «tax» reserved for
Muslims. Not to mention the price of the ticket - much more expensive for us
than for the Buddhists. Once you’re off the boat, on the quay of Sittwe, you
have to pay several hundreds of Kyats to the Immigration staff or to police officers.
Because of all these «extra charges» to
pay, the villagers have stopped taking the boat. We
prefer to go down the river in small boats, even if it takes much longer.”
One of the main consequences of the absence of the freedom
of movement is the impoverishment of the population, whose economic activity is
directly and seriously affected, as the following testimonies from North Arakan attest.
A
Buthidaung inhabitant stated that:
“If we were able to circulate freely, we would be able
to sell our farming products at a much higher price in Maungdaw than in our
village. Such a restriction is a big problem for those who rely on trade. For
instance, a hen sold 400 Kyats in our village would be worth twice that price
in Maungdaw. Only a small rich elite can afford a license to go to Maungdaw.
Without freedom of movement, we cannot look for a job in another village or in
another township either. For example, there are carpenters in the village who
cannot find any opportunity to work here. It is just as difficult for the
fishermen. Before 1990, we were free to leave the village and work elsewhere.
We used to go to other townships outside Buthidaung, even to Bangladesh, in
order to earn money. Then everything changed and after two very difficult years,
we decided to leave the country. If we don’t go back to Bangladesh now,
it is because of the Nasaka - we are constantly being watched.”
For many villagers, the Nasaka is to blame.
An inhabitant
from North Maungdaw says:
“Our situation in 1991–92 was far better. Today, it
feels just like being in jail. Even carrying the rice to eat is difficult.
Everything has become worse with the arrival of the Nasaka. The authorities
control people much more than before. Before, if we wanted to carry rice from a
village tract up north, it was possible; today, it no longer is - everything is
in the hands of the Nasaka. Before the Nasaka came at the end of 1992, we were
able to do some small trade: for instance, we could go to Maungdaw to buy cheap
goods, sell them back to Maungdaw to sell our vegetables. Today, even when we
pay we can’t go to Maungdaw to trade. The problem today is freedom of movement.”
Another
Maungdaw villager:
“Today, we are not allowed to travel in order to find
a job. The head of the VPDC has to report every third day about the absent
villagers. Anyone who has left the village without authorisation is crossed off
the list, and can no longer come back to the village.”
The repression and
discrimination against the Rohingyas is at the heart of an ethnic and religious
cleansing in northern Arakan, one essential means of which is a policy of
colonisation. The goal of the Burmese government is to progressively
empty Arakan of its Rohingya population, and replace it by Buddhists – Arakanese
Buddhists originally, Burman ones today. In the northern part of the State,
where the Rohingyas represent 90% of the population, the Burmese authorities
intensified at the beginning of the 1990s their policy of territorial, human
and religious conquest, which had already been going on for several decades.
The colonisation proceeds through «model villages»
built in the richest parts of Maungdaw and Buthidaung. The settlers do not
always move of their own free will to a region where they are culturally and
religiously a tiny minority. The construction of model villages entails forced
relocations of Rohingyas, relegated to the poorest and most isolated areas of
the region, as well as the confiscation of their land, which is then allocated to
the newcomers. Other Rohingya families living in the East or South of Maungdaw
and Buthidaung are also forcibly displaced to the north of these township
already overpopulated so as to «clean» Arakan as much as possible of its Muslim
population. The colonisation of northern Arakan relies heavily on the army: the
growing militarization of the region entails extra forced relocations of the population and additional
land confiscation.
The policy of conquest has also taken on a religious aspect,
with the authorities launching a religious offensive aimed at increasing the
Buddhist influence by constructing pagodas, stupas and other meditation centres.
Lastly, the Rohingyas have a minimal access to education. Both colonisation and
military occupation further accelerate the breakdown of an already weakened Rohingya
society. The only solution left for the most vulnerable sections of the
population is the exile to Bangladesh.
The policy of colonisation through
the construction of model villages started very soon after the independence.
From 1948 to 1978, most of these model villages were situated on the border in
order to ensure the presence of loyal populations in a sensitive area, and to
weaken any rebel movement. The two following decades saw a multiplication of
model villages in the Maungdaw and Buthidaung districts. According to the
UNHCR, fourteen were built in the area between 1991 and 1996. According to an
international NGO, over 100 arakanese villages have been set up around Maungdaw
and Buthidaung since 1950, compared to only 15 before then. The central
administration in charge of the colonisation is the Natala, the policies of which
are supervised in Arakan by the West Commander in Sittwe. Model villages are
designed for 100 families, each allocated on average two acres of land,
livestock, farm tools and a house. In some cases, the newcomers even get food
assistance. In spite of this material support, some prefer to leave again,
generally because of unemployment and because of a cultural and religious environment
where they represent a minority. The negative repercussions of such a policy
are numerous for the Rohingyas. Each new settlement means land confiscation
(see below), forced relocations, and consequently important economic losses.
A villager
from North Maungdaw says:
“There were 700 acres in the village tract. We already
gave 135 of them for the model village built in 1989. Most of the new families
arrived in 1991. The ten first families were retired army officers and their
families.”
In a South Maungdaw village:
“The land was confiscated seven years ago, in 1992.
Around 200 acres were confiscated for the new Inn Din model village – they took
30 acres just from our hamlet.”
Amnesty
International in its 2004 report recorded following testimonies:
A
28 year old Rohingya man from northern Maungdaw explained the situation in his
area:
“Over the last year [2003], the NaSaKa have imposed strict restrictions on our movement. We used
to travel almost everywhere in Maungdaw with a [local travel pass] from
the Chairman. But now, we cannot leave our village without permission of the
NaSaKa. Each NaSaKa sector has its own laws. It all depends on their respective
commanders… It is easier for us to visit Bangladesh then Maungdaw. To go to
Maungdaw town, you must get a [
local travel pass] from the SPDC
office and pay 1,000 kyat - 500 kyat for the form and 500 kyat to get the
signature and the stamp on it. You must then bring this [pass] to the Immigration officer inside the NaSaKa camp and give one gallon
of diesel or 2,000 kyat. Then they will issue a Form 4.”
An
extremely elderly Rohingya man from southern Buthidaung gave a historical
perspective to restrictions on travel:
“In the old days, I used to visit
Yangon [the capital] and many other places. But now I cannot
even go to Sittwe. Muslims now live inside a cage. They cannot move from one
place to another. Every time they must get permission from the VPDC Chairman
and from the NaSaKa.”
A
40 year old Rohingya man from northern Maungdaw explained the drastic
consequences of his inability to travel:
“Six months ago [mid 2003] my elder son aged 18 died from a gall bladder infection. I took him to
the village health centre where a Burmese doctor examined him and told me to
take him immediately to Sittwe hospital
or to a hospital in Bangladesh.
I took my son to the NaSaKa camp, showed them the doctor’s referral and begged
them to give me immediate permission to go to Sittwe hospital or to Bangladesh. But
they told me to go to Maungdaw hospital. In Maungdaw the doctor said he could
do nothing for him. So, I returned to my village and again I applied for travel
permission. By then it was too late and my son died without any treatment.”
Another
40 year old Rohingya man from northern Maungdaw reported his inability to earn
a living as a result of travel restrictions:
“Life has become very difficult
now. I became landless and there are no jobs. Since our movements are
restricted, I cannot even go to another village to find a job. I am a carpenter
and the daily wage of a carpenter is 2,500 kyat, but in my village I can hardly
find work for eight or 10 days a month.”
Amnesty International expressed deep concern about the official
restrictions on travel for the Rohingya population of northern Rakhine State. Their inability to travel freely
greatly inhibits the Rohingyas’ ability to earn a living and obtain proper
health care. Freedom of movement is a
fundamental human right, upon which other human rights are contingent. Article 13 of the UDHR states: “Everyone has
the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each
state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to
return to their country.” Restrictions
on the right to freedom of movement and the right to work may only be imposed
if they are based on law, pursue a legitimate objective, such as protecting
public order, and are strictly necessary.
The
sweeping restrictions on the movement of Rohingyas are disproportionate and
discriminatory; they are imposed on all Rohingyas because they are
Rohingyas, and not on members of other ethnic nationalities in Rakhine State.
Burma
Denies Existence of any Community named Rohingya
Burma’s military
rulers are ultra-nationalist and trying to abolish the past and re-write
everything as per their ultra-natinalist design. They have changed the name Akyab to Sittwe, Rangoon to Yangon, Arakan to Rakhine,
Burma to Myanmar, etc. The
centuries old name of ethnic Rohingya has however been branded as a name
created by “anti-state elements” in post-independent Burma.
The military
rulers of Burma
continue to deny the truth that the Rohingya is one of the indigenous races of Arakan.
Burmese rulers are ultra-nationalist as well as anti-Muslim. Because the
Rohingyas are Muslims, Burmese junta is adamantly bent on refusing the existence
of any race in the name “Rohingya”. They have been funding a hate campaign
against the Rohingya even inside Bangladesh to distort the image of
the Rohingyas so that the Rohigyas are afraid to be identified as Rohingyas and
ultimately abandon their Rohigya identity and thus the Rohigya race become
non-existent. The Burmese authorities and their writers call the Rohingyas nothing
but “Chittagongian” or “Bangali”.
Both Burmese and Bangladesh
Authorities
are Denying Rohingys’ Basic
Rights
In the words of UN-HABITAT, the UN Human
Settlements Programme, “the requisite imperative of housing for personal security, privacy,
health, safety, protection from the elements and many other attributes of a
shared humanity, has led the international community to recognize adequate
housing as a basic and fundamental human right.” This right
is enshrined in Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
According to the UN Committee on Economic
Social and Cultural Rights, forced eviction is the “permanent or temporary
removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the
homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to
appropriate forms of legal or other protections.” In
its resolution on Forced Evictions in 1993, the UN Human Rights Commission
stated that: “the practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation
of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing” and urged
governments to “confer legal security of tenure on all persons currently
threatened with forced eviction and to adopt all necessary measures giving full
protection against forced eviction, based upon effective participation,
consultation and negotiation with affected persons or groups.”
The right of children to adequate housing is
enshrined in Principle 4 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959).
Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989), the obligation
of states parties, in cases of need, to provide material assistance and support
programmes to families and children, particularly with regard to housing, is
set out in Article 27(3). The obligation
of states to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas in order to
ensure that they enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to
housing, is provided for in Article 14(2)(h) of the UN Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1981). Both Myanmar Government and Bangladesh
Government are a state parties to both the CRC and CEDAW.
In violation of above rights the
Burmese authorities have driven the Rohingya men women and children from their
homesteads and Bangladesh
authorities are resisting international efforts to build houses for the
registered and unregistered Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh.
Rohingya women and children in Arakan and Rohingya Refugee women and
children in Bangladesh
are denied of their due rights to education, nutrition and re-productive
health. In both the countries these unfortunate people are living like in a
cage or concentration camp denied of the essential freedom of movement and
livelihood.
Possible
Solutions
Serious
efforts are necessary to support a reconciliation of the Rakhaing and the
Rohingya in Arakan. The international community should support and do wherever
possible to facilitate an Arakanese reconciliation process. It is necessary
that representatives of both Rohingya Muslims and Rakhaning Buddhists recognize
and respect each other and try to move forward.
As long as the current political and human rights problems in
Burma/Arakan continue, the responsibility of the Government of Bangladesh and UNHCR remains to protect
the refugees from Burma and guarantee them protection and a bearable life.
Presence of
expatriate staff of UNHCR, international NGOs and international media in Arakan
should be increased. Many Rohingyas inside Arakan insist that such presence can
become key element in their protection against Burmese authorities.
It is
guessed that about one and half a million Rohingys fled Arakan due to
persecution by Burmese rulers. To determine the correct figure, an
international survey may be conducted. Many of them are now in the Middle East,
Pakistan, India, Malaysia,
Thailand, China, Australia,
Europe and America.
Most of them were obliged to use bordering Bangladesh as a transit and went to
those countries with Bangladeshi Passports.
These Roghinyas should be given the opportunity to obtain legal Identity
Card and Travel Document as Roghinya Refugee.
About
28,000 inmates of Nayapara and Kutupalang Burmese Refugee Camps in Bangladesh are
now in inhuman condition like in concentration camps. Warehousing of refugees
is inhuman, unfair, unethical and thus illegal. They should be given Identity
Card and Freedom of Movement. Their shelters and sanitation should be rebuilt.
Their women and children must have access not only to primary education, but
also to higher education. Those who want to work to earn for improved life,
should be provided with possible support.
Rohingyas displaced
from Arakan who have taken shelter in Bangladesh outside above 2 camps
should be protected from harassment and intimidation of authorities and local
goons. Survey by international humanitarian body/bodies should determine their
identity and correct figure.
It is
evident that a section of media in Bangladesh and elsewhere are trying
to depict the Rohingyas as an evil community.
Proper investigation should be made and
actions should be taken against those who are instigating and
campaigning hatred against the Roghingya Community. Every community is composed
of good as well bad people. To instigate hatred against any community is a
crime against humanity.
Efforts
should be taken to heighten the image of the Rohingya community. Last year Mr.
Nurul Islam, a prominent Rohingya leader in exile, telephoned me from London to communicate to me of his anxiety that if the
Rohingya is depicted as a criminal community then even after civil rights are
restored Burma, the new
authorities in Burma
may use it as pretext to bar Rohingyas from returning to their homeland.
Both the
Registered and Unregistered Rohingya Refugees should be given Identity Card and
Travel Document to facilitate their freedom of movement, livelihood and access
to health care and education including higher education.
It is
necessary to note that until there is positive change in Burmese Citizenship
Law Rohingya Refugees are stateless. Survival
of the stateless people depends on developing their manpower in quality and
skill through higher education and training so that other nations and societies
welcome them as invaluable assets.
ANNEXURES:
On Refoulment
[Forced
Return to Burma]
“No contracting State shall expel or return
(”refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories
where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
-Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees of 1951, Article 33, § 1.
As early as April 1992, the Bangladeshi and Burmese
governments signed a bilateral agreement on the repatriation of the Rohingyas.
Despite being mentioned in the agreement, the UNHCR was de facto excluded and
had to confine its help to the refugees within the camps. The “voluntary and
safe” return, which according to the agreement was supposed to start in May
1992, became an operation of forced return to Burma. The first departures did not
actually take place before the autumn, because of a strong resistance from the
refugees, coupled with international protests concerning the danger of
repatriation in such conditions. Camp authorities nonetheless increased the
pressure through violence or by confiscating the ration cards (necessary to
obtain food or to get healthcare), in order to encourage refugees to
“volunteer”. When refugees dared to protest, the clampdown came immediately –
and violently: 15 people were killed, 40 injured and 119 imprisoned during a
riot.
TESTIMONIES
A Maungdaw inhabitant testifies:
“We went to Bangladesh to find refuge but they
hated us over there. The Bangladeshi authorities started to send the refugees
back to Burma.
Anybody who refused to leave was locked up in a dark room, worse than a jail. I
stayed there for eight days. We did not receive any protection because the
Bangladeshi authorities prevented us from having any contact with the UNHCR.
Those of us who managed to speak to the UNHCR were arrested afterwards. We
got information that the situation had
worsened in Burma,
because of the Nasaka. We therefore tried to stay, but the Bangladeshi
authorities forced us to leave.”
Another Maungdaw villager
evokes the pressures he endured:
“We left because the Bangladeshi authorities forced us
to do so. At first, they told us that the situation had become safer in Burma, as they
wanted to convince us to leave. Then, they confiscated our ration cards to
prevent us from getting food: this was blackmail aimed at urging us to leave.
When the UNHCR came to visit the camp, we told them about our situation and
they promised that we would get the ration cards back. After the UNHCR left,
the camp authorities looked for the spokesmen who had talked to the UNHCR and
they were beaten. The next time the UNHCR came to visit the camp, we told them
about the violence. Once again, those who spoke were beaten. The Bangladeshi
authorities threatened us: “You’ll get into big trouble if you do not go back
to your country. Nobody can protect you here”.”
An inhabitant of Maungdaw says:
“The UNHCR organised meetings to explain that they had now
set up bases in Burma
so that they could take care of us as they currently did in the camps. The
UNHCR told us: “We have an agreement with the Burmese government, you will not
be forced to work anymore, no more problems, you will be given the same freedom
of movement as the other “nationalities”, everything will be all right. The
UNHCR will pay for the
reconstruction of your house. We will give you food and other
basic products for ten years.” The UNHCR promised us that if the Burmese authorities
brought us troubles as in 1991, we could ask them for their protection. Lastly,
the UNHCR said: “We will not leave Burma as long as you consider you
need us”.”
A villager from North Buthidaung
testified:
“UNHCR expatriates organised a meeting to announce
that the situation was now safe in Burma and that we had to go home.
They told us: “We will protect and help you as we do today during ten years, in
particular with food supplies. If you stay here you will be as Palestinians,
without land, so you should rather go home”. After this meeting, we received negative information from
Burma,
so we preferred to refuse. The UNHCR did not come back, but the Bangladeshi
authorities did - actually, it was the police, who beat up several refugees. [A
man shows his arm, handicapped since he was beaten up.] Then, when we wanted to
take our food share, the camp guards confiscated our ration cards. We could no
longer have access to food – we only had drinking water. We remained more than
a week without eating and finally accepted to leave.”
Other refugees, like this Buthidaung villager, were
even never in contact with the UNHCR:
“We have been forced to go back home. The Bangladeshi
authorities asserted that the
situation was all right in Burma and that we could go back
home. We knew that nothing had changed, so we refused to leave the camps. But
then, they beat us up. Some families no longer got the same food shares. The
UNHCR used to come quite often in the camps but we were not allowed to talk
with its representatives. We have never talked to anyone from the UNHCR. The
ones who tried have been arrested and imprisoned. The UNHCR representatives,
all of whom were expatriates always came with the Bangladeshi heads of camp. We
left the camp in UNHCR trucks. The Bangladeshi police fired into the air to
frighten the refugees who refused to get on. There were no UNHCR
representatives but only their trucks. We saw the first representatives of the
UNHCR once we arrived at the Naf
River, just at the
border. But we could not really talk to them. When we finally managed to get
near one of them, the Bangladeshi translator did not translate correctly: he
explained that we wanted to go back to Burma… The few “educated” persons
of the camp often got imprisoned because they could represent the refugees to
the UNHCR. Some persons are still imprisoned in Bangladesh, some others have been
released and gone back to the village.”
A villager
from North Buthidaung:
“We stayed a night in the Buthidaung transit camp. We
received 2,000 Kyats per person from the UNHCR [20 dollars at the time, 6
dollars in 1999] and food for fifteen days. The Burmese authorities took a
picture of each family. We also received a family list. In order to go back
home, we had to take a local ferry which had an agreement with the immigration
department. The man on the ferry collected the family lists and each person,
even the children, had to pay 200 Kyats. Usually, we only pay a few dozens
Kyats to get from Buthidaung to our village...”
A woman in a village
situated in the south of Maungdaw testified:
“The UNHCR promised us we would get everything back,
our houses and our fields, and that we would be given help and protection for
ten years. When I arrived in the village, got my compound back, but my house
had been destroyed by the Nasaka which used the wood for their camp. The few
land acres I had left got confiscated for a model village. I did not receive
any compensation.”
In another
fishing village south of Maungdaw:
“When we got back, we got our compounds back but not
the houses which were destroyed. Most of them, especially the bigger ones, had been
destroyed by the Nasaka, and the smaller ones sometimes by the bad weather. We
lost the 16 field acres in the village. Today, the village has no fields left.”
In another
village in Buthidaung district, a returnee said:
“When we left for Bangladesh, we left everything behind
– when we got back, our houses were destroyed. We managed to rebuild them with
the UNHCR money; but it wasn’t enough, so we sold the mosquito nets, the plates
and the other things the UNHCR had given us. Everything but the food. We also
got our fields back – mainly small surfaces. About thirty families had less than
an acre. But in 1997, we were forced to sell our fields to villagers who were not returnees. The year had been a bad one and
we could not afford all the expenses.”
Restrictions of the freedom of movement and new taxes made
for an unbearable situation for many returnees.
A Maungdaw
inhabitant:
“In the village, only the compounds were left, houses
had been destroyed and the coconut palms cut. I had thirty mango trees and none
of them were left when I got back. For the first month, we did not have forced
labour. But freedom of movement was limited as soon as we arrived. Then forced
labour resumed: we had to build roofs, cut and transport bamboo for the military.
As well as guarding the village at night.”
Almost all the returnees interviewed in Maungdaw and Buthidaung
reported that the situation was “no better” when they got back. On top of the
difficulties inherent in reinstallation, they were faced with the same restrictions
and discriminations as before. Forced labour was imposed anew; they were not
allowed to travel about in order to look for a work or trade outside of their villages;
prices increased greatly and taxes crippled their slim budgets more than ever.
A villager
from South Maungdaw:
“We did not ask the UNHCR for any particular help
because we knew it was working hand in hand with the authorities, particularly
with the Nasaka. The UNHCR support was limited to the widows who continued to
receive a material help. The rest of the population did not receive anything in
spite of the promises.”
The feeling of deception is
pervasive, as a villager of South Maungdaw
expresses it:
“We are grateful to the UNHCR for a certain help they
gave us, but there were too many false promises. That’s why people hate the
UNHCR.”
For the Rohingyas who dared to complain to the UNHCR
about the repression they endured, or ask for help, the reception was certainly
not always up to the UNHCR’s
stated principles, as illustrated by the following
words of a Maungdaw inhabitant:
“The UNHCR promised us that if we encountered problems
with the Burmese authorities as in 1991, we could go to them and they would
protect us. The UNHCR even said: “We will not leave Burma as long as you think you
still need us”. After my return to Burma, I went to the UNHCR and
complained about forced labour and problems of freedom of movement. They answered:
“We cannot do anything!” I went to the Maungdaw UNHCR office twice to complain
but never got any answer. I met an expatriate, who merely listened and said:
“We will see what we can do…”. I haven’t heard from them since.”
Conclusions
Burma
Center Netherlands : Report
of the fact-finding mission - April/May 2003
The core problem
of the Rohingya people is still the discriminatory and repressive policy of the
Burmese junta (SPDC) in Arakan
State. Because of the
continuation of forced labour, restrictions on the freedom of movement,
discriminatory taxes, confiscation of land etc. Rohingyas continue to flee to Bangladesh.
Many refugees nowadays living in Bangladesh refuse to repatriate to Burma
voluntarily because of their fear of repression.
At the same time,
Rohingyas are on a constant pressure by the Bangladeshi authorities to
repatriate to Burma.
This pressure has significantly increased in recent weeks and months. Camp
authorities in the two remaining official Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh use
different methods to press refugees, who are increasingly threatened by this.
UNHCR has made
plans to stimulate self-sufficiency for these recognized refugees. Although all
involved parties accept the relevance of this plan, there are serious concerns
about the lack of communication and consultation about this plan by UNHCR. The
same concerns are felt by UNHCRs second plan to ‘streamline’ its health care in
the camps. There are serious doubts about the time-frame of the plan and the
impact of an eventual withdrawing of international organizations (as
‘nightwatchers’) from the camps. There are also concerns about the (lack of)
possibilities and maybe even willingness of the Government of Bangladesh (and
for example its Ministry of Health) to agree with UNHCRs plans and to actively
support it.
Except of the
recognized Rohingya refugees, there are 100,000 – 300,000 undocumented Rohingya
refugees in Bangladesh.
They survive without any rights and are in vulnerable condition. The current
policy of the Bangladeshi authorities (and UNHCR) which denies any involvement
and humanitarian support is not humane. The Bangladeshi authorities and UNHCR
have no sufficient information how many undocumented Rohingyas exactly live in Bangladesh and
their reasons for fleeing to Bangladesh.
Because these refugees are officially denied any kind of (humanitarian) aid,
they often live in unbearable conditions. An extreme example is the newly
established Teknaf ‘makeshift camp’, where 4,000 refugees are hiding now, and which
will possibly be swept away by the monsoon rains.
As long as the
current political and human rights problems in Burma/Arakan continue, the
responsibility of the Government of Bangladesh and UNHCR remains to protect the
refugees from Burma and to guarantee them protection and a bearable life.
Because the conditions In the camps are deteriorating, there is now for them an
even more urgent need to increase their efforts.
Recommendations
By Burma
Center Netherlands (BCN)
Report of the fact-finding mission
- April/May 2003
We call upon the
international (donor) community, including EU, EU-Member States, Japan
and US, to:
1.
Request the Government of Bangladesh to urgently
allow UNHCR and INGOs to prevent a human disaster by giving practical assistance
to the refugees in Teknaf ‘makeshift camp’ (Tal) as soon as possible;
2.
Increase their financial and logistical support to
UNHCR and WFP-programmes to the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh as long as there is no
significant positive change in Arakan/Burma. The safety of the Rohingyas in the
refugee camps should be guaranteed;
3.
Request UNHCR, regarding its ‘self-sufficiency plan’
for recognized refugees, to start serious communications with all involved
actors (like WFP, MSF and Concern) about it, start a real consultation process
which should especially include the refugees involved, guarantee a ‘safety net’
during the transition period and continue to allow international organizations
to support the refugees and to play a ‘nightwatchers role’;
4.
Request UNHCR, with regard to its plan to ‘streamline’
the health care in the camps, to seriously consult all involved actors
(especially Concern and MSF), to actively cooperate with them for the actual
implementation of any new plans;
5.
Request UNHCR to extend its current language teachings
and skill training programs for Rakhine-Buddhist refugees, and to recognize as
refugees all politically involved Rakhine-Buddhists who are currently mainly in
the Bangladesh-Burma border regions;
6.
Approach the Bangladeshi authorities and raise the
following issues:
a.
To halt the current pressure on the refugees to
repatriate and forced repatriation by the camp authorities in the two official
refugee camps;
b.
To agree with UNHCRs ‘self-sufficiency plan’ and to
assist it in actively cooperating with UNHCR and the other involved
international organizations to implement it with safety guarantees for the
refugees;
c.
To allow a new and independent investigation into the
exact reasons why the 100,000 – 300,000 non-registered Rohingyas in Bangladesh fled
from Burma
and give implementation to the outcome of this independent research;
d.
To immediately release all non-criminal refugees from
detention, to release all refugees which have finished their term and to give
legal assistance to all other refugees in detention;
7.
Call upon the Government of Burma to stop its
repression (including forced labour, lack of religious freedoms and lack of
freedom of movement) and discriminatory policy towards the peoples in Arakan in
general and the Rohingya-Muslims particularly;
All
parties involved, including the international community, the Burmese democratic
and ethnic opposition, Rohingya-Muslim and Rakhine-Buddhist representatives (of
armed organizations, intellectuals, politicians etc.) should:
8.
Actively support an ‘All Arakanese Reconciliation
Process’, with relevant representatives of both Rohingya-Muslims and
Rakhine-Buddhists. This includes recognition of Rohingya-Muslims and their
representatives by all involved parties;
By Amnesty International
Myanmar : The
Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied
May
2004
|
|
AI Index: ASA
16/005/2004
|
Amnesty International is concerned that the local
Myanmar authorities’ policies regarding the Rohingya population in the northern
Rakhine State result in violations of a wide range of their basic human
rights. While the general human rights
situation in Myanmar is far from satisfactory, the Rohingyas suffer from specific deeply
discriminatory polices targeting them.
The vast majority of Rohingyas are effectively denied Myanmar
citizenship; subjected to severe restrictions on freedom of movement; forced
labour; forced evictions; and extortion and arbitrary taxation. Other ethnic nationalities in the northern
Rakhine State are not subjected to the same extent to such restrictions and
human rights violations. The combination
of all these practices makes it almost impossible for Rohingyas to enjoy their
right to an adequate standard of living.
In order to ensure that the fundamental rights of Rohingyas are
respected, Amnesty International makes the following recommendations to the
Myanmar Government:
i.
Put
an end to the harsh regime of permits
and travel bans currently imposed on Rohingyas in
the
Rakhine State.
ii. Ensure that any restrictions on movement are
only imposed if they are absolutely necessary, are related to a specific
security threat and are non-discriminatory and proportionate in terms of their
impact and their duration.
i. All outstanding orders for
forced evictions and demolitions should be cancelled and a moratorium should be
placed on future forced evictions and demolitions until such time as the
relevant laws are amended in a manner
that complies with international standards.
ii. Relevant laws and
policies governing the zoning and allocation of land must be amended
immediately. Provisions which are discriminatory must be repealed or amended.
Laws and policies must be implemented in a manner that both respects the
prohibition on discrimination on grounds including race, religion, national or
ethnic origin and descent, as well as the right of all people to an adequate
standard of living.
i. The SPDC should ensure
that no local security forces take civilians for forced labour duties.
ii. The
SPDC should fully cooperate with the International Labour Office’s
recommendations and technical assistance with regard to the total elimination
of forced labour.
Amnesty International recommends that the
Myanmar Government amend or repeal its citizenship laws in order to bring them
into line with international standards.
In particular, the citizenship laws should ensure:
i.
that all legal provisions and all decisions regarding citizenship are
free of
any
discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, language or
religion;
ii. the grant of
nationality with full citizenship rights, without discrimination of any kind,
to persons born in its territory who
would otherwise be stateless, including in particular children;
iii. the grant of
nationality to persons not born in its territory but able to establish a
genuine and effective link to Myanmar;
iv. that any decision to deny citizenship be
properly motivated and that written reasons for such a decision are given, and
communicated in a language the applicant for citizenship understands;
v. that persons denied citizenship are entitled
to appeal against such a decision, and that the appeal be heard by an
independent and impartial review body;
vi. that the powers to revoke citizenship be
reviewed to ensure that an individual cannot be arbitrarily deprived of his/her
citizenship.
Amnesty International further
recommends that the Myanmar Government accede to and implement the 1954
Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, the 1961 Convention on
the Reduction of Statelessness, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and the 1969 International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Amnesty International recommends that UNHCR, consistent with its mandate
in relation to stateless persons, and recognising the close link between
statelessness and the creation of refugees and protracted refugee situations,
should:
i.
actively promote
accession to the 1954 and 1961 Conventions on Statelessness;
ii.
Provide
technical and advisory services to the Myanmar government on necessary measures
to bring the government’s law, policy and practice into line with international
legal standards;
iii.
Engage in
training and confidence-building measures in local communities, including with
local officials dealing with the Rohingya population on a day-to-day basis.
Recommendations to the
International Community
Recognising the important responsibility it has in reducing statelessness
and minimising the human rights abuses perpetrated against stateless persons,
Amnesty International recommends that the international community should:
i. ensure that UNHCR is adequately
resourced to give priority and effect to its mandate
in relation to
persons who have been rendered effectively stateless in Myanmar;
ii. bring pressure to bear on the Myanmar government to bring
its law, policy and practice in relation to citizenship and the right to
nationality into line with international standards.
Amnesty International further recommends that the SPDC
accede to the following international human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and its Optional Protocol. In addition, the organization urges the SPDC
to accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. These treaties should become incorporated
into the domestic law in Myanmar, obligating its government and justiciable in
its courts.
By DHAKA SEMINAR 2004
5th JULY 2004 at Bangladesh National Press Club
Recommendations to the Government of
Bangladesh and to the International Community
1. It is recommended that the Rohingya
Refugees should not be sent back to Myanmar until the Myanmar
Government recognizes the Rohingya Nationality as one of the nationalities of
that country and agrees to the full nationality & citizenship right of
Rohingyas, and until Human Rights situation inside Myanmar improves significantly.
2. It is recommended that the Rohingya
Refugees, who are staying outside Myanmar, should not be sent back to
Myanmar
against their will and until causes of insecurity exist in that country. It is
also recommended that all programs for necessities and maintenance of refugees
be continued.
3. It is reminded that Rohingya Refugees
can not be a burden only of Bangladesh.
This is a burden of international community.
4. Call is made to international community
to put pressure on Myanmar Government to return to the Rohingyas their
homesteads, land and properties unfairly confiscated by the Myanmar
authorities.
5. It is recommended that appropriate
facilities for education of the Rohingya children and youth staying in Bangladesh as
Refugees be made and that the level of education they received in Myanmar be
identified and recognized and hindrances in the way of their admission in educational
institutions in Bangladesh
be removed. Further they be offered
opportunities for higher education.
6. It is recommended that Specific Health
and Educational programs be implemented for the Rohingya females staying in Bangladesh as
Refugees.
7. It is recommended that international
voluntary organizations experienced in providing specialized services to the
refugees, particularly those who in past served the Rohingya Refugees, be
re-engaged in the services of the Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh.
8. The participants of this Seminar
recommend to the Government of Bangladesh that a specific national refugee law
be enacted under the provision of the Constitution of Bangladesh.
Recommendations to the Myanmar
Government
1. Participants of this Seminar expressing
their concern that the Myanmar Government's move to abolished the age-old name
Arakan and re-name the territory as Rakhine
State, is indicative of
their intention to replace the Rohingya nationality by re-settling the Rakhine
nationality. Therefore, the participants
of this seminar call the Myanmar Government to reinstate the name of the Arakan
state and recognize the Rohingya nationality.
2. Participants of this Seminar are
calling to the Myanmar Government for removing all governmental obstructions in
Rohingyas' practicing their faith, and calling for removing restrictions in
maintenance, reconstruction and construction of Rohingyas' prayer places and
religious institutions.
3. Participants of this Seminar are
calling to the Myanmar Government for ensuring unhindered equal opportunities
for education and higher education of the Rohingya Children and Youth and for
this purpose all restrictions on their travel from village to town and to
foreign countries be removed.
4. Participants of this Seminar are
calling to the Myanmar Government for ensuring unhindered movement of Rohingyas
from village to village, village to town and to foreign countries for the
purpose of employment, business, treatment and other reasonable needs.
5. Information received from various
sources indicates that due to Governmental oppression and deprivation Rohingyas
had to leave Myanmanr and take shelter in various countries. The number of such Rohingyas staying outside Myanmar seems
to be as follows:-
(a) In Bangladesh 600,000+
(b) In Saudi Arabia 400,000+
(c) In Pakistan 350,000+
(d) Other countries 200,000+
Participants of this Seminar are calling to the
Myanmar Government to recognize the right of above ethnic Rohingya to return to
their homeland.
By DHAKA SEMINAR 2005
8th August 2005
at Bangladesh National Press Club
RESOLUTIONS
1.
Reached unanimous and conclusive resolution that the
law enforcing agencies and their officials are not above law and not beyond the
jurisdiction of legal actions. The field officials are not obliged to carry out
the unlawful instructions of their higher authority.
2.
Reminds the Government about its responsibility to
impart appropriate training to the officials of law enforcing agencies
regarding the standards of national and international laws pertaining to human
rights.
3.
Notes with concern that, in spite of being inherently
Muslims, the Arakani Rohingyas are treated as minority community and deprived
of all civic and human rights in a predominantly Muslim country like Bangladesh. It
is evident that, the tendency prevailing in our country about identifying
ethnic minority in the name of religion is not actually due to religious
differences, rather owing to age old prejudices and selfish narrow-mindedness.
4.
Advises the Rohingya and Rakhain communities of Arakan
to forge a strong and solid unity so as to be able to collectively realize
their civil liberties and human rights and attain freedom from the unlawful
actions and ruthless atrocities of despotic rulers.
5.
Extends unequivocal supports to the fundamental freedom
and universal human rights of the entire mankind irrespective of nationality,
religion and color. Especially pleads for ensuring comprehensive human rights
and security of minority communities throughout the world.
6.
Calls upon the government of Bangladesh to collect funds
committed by European Union for Rohingya
and Rakhain refugees and immediately undertake necessary interventions to
alleviate disgraceful miseries of the refugees.
7.
Requests the government to register all unregistered
Rakhain and Rohingya refugees and provide the necessary support and assistances
to them.
8. Strongly urges the government to provide
identity cards and necessary travel documents to the Rohingya and Rakhain
refugees in order to facilitate their legal migration within Bangladesh and
abroad. The international community including UNHCR is requested to extend
generous support to this endeavor.
9.
Expresses strong resolute to remain engaged in its
continued struggles to the pursuit of ensuring comprehensive and universal
human rights of different religious and ethnic minority communities at
different places of Bangladesh, in the neighboring countries and throughout the
world.
Justice M.A. Wahab
Excerpts from his Welcome Speech at Dhaka Seminar 2005
The
issue of minority is a sensitive issue. It is universally agreed that “Special
attention should be given to the protection of human rights of members of
potentially vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly, women, refugees,
displaced persons and members of minority groups.” [UN Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials, Articles 1,2,5; Beijing Declaration and Platform for
Actions , paragraph 22.4].
Rohingya Refugees
in Bangladesh
are Minority Ethnic Hill People who have been displaced by military rulers of
neighboring country. So they deserve our
extra compassion. ..They are being
ignored. Rather some quarters are trying to run a “hate campaign against Rohingya
Minority”. .... serious efforts are
necessary in order to support a reconciliation
of Rakhanie
and Rohingya
in Arakan. The international
community should support and do wherever possible to
facilitate an Arakanese reconciliation process. It is necessary that
representative of both Rohingya Muslims and Rakhanie
Buddhists recognize and respect each other and try to move forward. As long as the current political and human
rights problems in Burma/Arakan continue, the responsibility of the Government
of Bangladesh and UNHCR remains to protect the refugees from Burma and guarantee
them protection and a bearable life.
By REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL ,
Washington
D.C. July 21, 2006.
To the government of
Bangladesh
·
Recognize that the camp population cannot go
back to Burma anytime in the near future and has a right to live with dignity
in Bangladesh with complete access to basic services.
·
As a member of the UN Human Rights Council prove
its commitment to the refugees’ protection by taking immediate action to end
their abuse and exploitation.
·
Hold accountable those officials responsible for
deaths of refugees due to denial of medicine.
·
Permit more UN agencies and international NGOs
access to the camps as well as the makeshift camp population.
·
Allow international organizations to implement
better facilities for the camp refugees and support the establishment of better
educational and skills training programs in the camps.
·
Allow refugees to engage in income generating
activities.
·
Grant refugees freedom of movement.
·
Provide UNHCR access to camps in the evenings.
·
Enable refugees, including refugee women, to
become involved in the camp management and allow refugees to elect their own
representatives.
To UNHCR
·
Appoint more expatriate staff and establish more
field offices in Burma’s northern Rakhine State.
·
Initiate partnerships with international NGOs
and encourage them to become involved in the provision of assistance in the
camps in Bangladesh.
·
Continue to seek durable solutions for the
refugees in the camps.
·
Maintain existing programs and full involvement
in camps until durable solutions have been agreed to by all parties.
·
Ensure the provision of complementary food and
essential non-food items to the refugees.
To Other UN Agencies
·
Consider working in the camps with their own
funding.
·
Seek permission to work with the makeshift camp
population and the Bangladeshi local community near the camps.
To the US Government
·
Support the position of UNHCR and the European
Commission in their refusal to accept a sub-agreement with unjustified overhead
costs.
To Donors
·
Pressure the Government of Burma to end the
repression of the Rohingya and permit more expatriate staff to be based in
northern Rakhine State.
·
Allocate adequate funds for UNHCR operations in
northern Rakhine State.
·
Continue to fund the Rohingya operations in
Bangladesh while urging the government to control mistreatment of the refugees
by local elements and authorities.
·
Provide more funding for shelters once the pilot
project is concluded and shelters are replaced on a wider scale.
·
Pursue resettlement options for the camp based
Rohingya, especially the most vulnerable.
To Human Rights
organizations
·
Undertake efforts to highlight in international
forums the human rights violations faced by the Rohingya in both Burma and
Bangladesh.
By DHAKA SEMINAR-2006
12 Sept.2006 at National
Press Club, Dhaka.
Resolutions
Resolutions
unanimously adopted at the Closing Session of the DHAKA SEMINAR-2006 are as follows:
1. This Seminar believes that Human Security and National Security are not conflicting with each
other. Therefore, it is the moral and constitutional obligations of the
Government to take necessary measure and ensure
prevalence of a congenial atmosphere in the country to protect the refugees and
minorities, from all forms and
manifestations of discrimination or deprivation in the name of national
security or in any other pretext.
2. This Seminar observes that it is the moral and
constitutional obligations of the Government of Bangladesh to provide fundamental humanitarian assistance to the Rohingya Refugees
who have been compelled to take temporary shelter in Bangladesh due to ruthless
repression and ethnic cleansing in Arakan by the ruling military junta of
Myanmar.
3. This seminar further believes that such essential humanitarian assistance may be
extended to the Rohingya refugees without instigating any provocation to the
national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Union of Myanmar.
4. This seminar unequivocally expresses its complete concurrence to the recommendations contained in
the report of the Washington-based Refugees International published on 21
July 2006.
5. This seminar believes that the undesirable, distorted, baseless and fabricated propaganda orchestrated
at home and abroad regarding so-called emergence of militancy in Bangladesh, is
indirectly instigating the proliferation of militancy itself. This seminar
opines that instead of attributing militancy to the dissident individuals or
communities, sincere and holistic endeavor in combating militancy will solve
the problem once and for all.
6. This seminar demands more effective and coordinated
endeavor of the concerned Government agencies in combating militancy.
Concurrently, it further emphasizes that the concerned agencies should be extra vigilant during anti-militancy
operations so that ordinary and innocent people are not harassed under any
circumstance.
Rohingya
Refugees in Bangladesh Need ID Card and Travel Document
1. We have interviewed many Rohingya
Refugees who said that they want to return to Myanmar as soon as their Citizenship
Rights and Civil Liberties are guaranteed. Until these rights have been
guaranteed in Myanmar, they want to stay, work and educate their children in
other countries. They feel that Bangladesh is too poor and the elite,
administration and media in Bangladesh are very unfriendly. So they usually try
to go to Arab countries, Malaysia, Singapore, Europe and USA. They need ID Card
as Myanmar Rohigya and want to travel by fair & genuine legal travel
documents. But at present for traveling to other countries they are obliged to
obtain Bangladeshi Passports with false identity as Bangladesh National.
2.
We
think, the international community should find out ways to oblige Myanmar Junta to restore full citizenship
rights and civil liberties of Rohingyas in Myanmar and expedite the process of
voluntary repatriation of the Myanmar Refugees.
3.
ID
Card and Travel Document should be issued to all Myanmar Refugees and asylum
seekers in Bangladesh – whether documented or undocumented, Rohingya or
Rakhanie. Otherwise, on the one hand
these Myanmar Refugees may permanently become State-less, and on the other hand
Myanmar Junta’s cruelty & Human Rights abuses will increase and their
military ambition may bolster to threaten the security of neighbors.
