amnesty international
MYANMAR/BANGLADESH
ROHINGYAS - THE SEARCH
FOR SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 1997 SUMMARY Al INDEX:ASA 13/07/97
Thousands
of Burmese Muslims from the Rakhine (Arakan) State in
Myanmar, known as Rohingyas, have fled into
southeastern Bangladesh during the first half of 1997. Unlike more than 250,000 Rohingya refugees who came
to Bangladesh in 1991 and 1992, these new
arrivals are largely living in local villages rather than in designated refugee
camps. The Government of Bangladesh
has not permitted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to interview these people,
asserting that they are all economic migrants. Amnesty International is aware
of reports that some of the new arrivals have stated that they have left
Myanmar solely because of economic hardship. However, it is concerned that others are in fact people fleeing serious human
rights violations in Myanmar, and therefore would be in need of protection. Indeed, it should be noted that the
distinction between economic
hardship and violations of civil and political rights is not necessarily a
clear one; for example, many of the
Rohingyas have been unable to make a living due to continuing unpaid forced labour in Rakhine
state. Given the grave human rights situation in Myanmar, it is
impossible to state in a blanket fashion that Rohingyas are only fleeing
economic hardship and therefore are not
worthy of protection.
Rohingya
refugees who arrived in Bangladesh in 1991 and 1992 fled massive human rights violations in the Rakhine
State, including extrajudicial executions, torture, forced labour and portering.
The range and extent of these abuses constituted widespread repression of the Rohingyas by the Burmese security
forces, resulting in unprecedented numbers
of refugees fleeing the country. Although the human rights situation in the Rakhine State has marginally improved, forced labour, portering and forcible relocations under harsh conditions continue to be reported. Such
practices are common throughout Myanmar,
but members of ethnic minorities such as the Rohingyas are particularly vulnerable. Amnesty International has received
reliable reports from eye-witnesses who have
recently observed forced labour of civilians in the Rakhine
State. According to witnesses Rohingyas and
other ethnic minorities including the Arakanese and Mro, were forced
to work on roads and bridges by the Burmese security forces in December 1996 and
during the first half of 1997. The border patrol police in Myanmar, known as
the Na Sa Ka, were reportedly one of the security forces responsible for
seizing them as labourers.
The long-term human rights crisis in Myanmar has
meant that tens of thousands of refugees
from various ethnic minorities have fled to neighbouring countries, primarily Bangladesh and Thailand. Such massive outflows have created an enormous
burden for these two countries, who are
under pressure to provide safe havens for these people with very limited resources themselves. Bangladesh
needs international support to ensure that refugees are given protection and an appropriate level of treatment.
Mass flights of refugees are an
international responsibility; countries that happen to be the nearest point of
safety should not be left alone to bear that responsibility. The refugee
burdens Bangladesh and Thailand face
make it even more imperative for the international community, including both governments and intergovernmental organizations
such as the EU, to increase pressure on the SLORC to clean up its human rights
record.
These new arrivals joined some 21,800 Rohingyas living
in camps in Bangladesh, the remainder of the over
250,000 refugees who had fled in the early 1990s. Since then tens of thousands
of Rohingyas have been repatriated, although various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have expressed concern that the repatriation
operation has gqne forward
without a fundamental improvement in the human rights situation in Myanmar, and
have questioned whether the
repatriation of many of these refugees was truly voluntary.
The SLORC has reportedly agreed to accept only 7,500 of the
remaining 21,800 Rohingyas. UNHCR has
requested the Bangladeshi authorities to allow the remaining 14,000 Rohingyas to settle in Bangladesh. The
repatriation process stopped in April 1997, but
on 20 and 22 July 1997 the Bangladeshi security forces forcibly returned 399
Rohingyas from Kutapalong
and Nayapara camps. After protests from UNHCR, who
had been denied access to the refugees, the Government of Bangladesh agreed not
to return any Rohingyas against their will. However
the government stated at the same time that none of the Rohingya refugees would be allowed to remain in Bangladesh
permanently.
KEYWORDS: REFUGEES 1 / REFOULEMENT1 / MINORITIES 1 / FORCED
LABOUR / TORTURE/ILL-TREATMENT /
RELIGIOUS GROUPS - ISLAMIC / WOMEN / MILITARY / ARMED CIVILIANS / HUNGER-STRIKE
/ ARMED CONFLICT / SECOND GOVERNMENTS /
UNHCR / RECOMMENDED ACTIONS /
This report summarizes a 7-page
document (2,913 words), MYANMAR/BANGLADESH: Rohingyas - The search for safety (AI
Index: ASA 13/07/97) issued by Amnesty International
in SEPTEMBER 1997. Anyone wishing further details or to take action on this issue should consult the full document.
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1
EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X 8DJ, UNITED KINGDOM
MYANMAR/BANGLADESH
ROHINGYAS - THE SEARCH FOR SAFETY
INTRODUCTION
Thousands
of Burmese Muslims from the Rakhine (Arakan) State in
Myanmar, known as Rohingyas, fled into
southeastern Bangladesh during the first half of 1997. Unlike more than 250,000 Rohingya refugees
who came to Bangladesh in 1991 and 1992, these new arrivals are largely living in local villages rather than in
designated refugee camps. The Government of
Bangladesh has not permitted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to interview these people, asserting that they
are all economic migrants. Amnesty International is aware of reports that some
of the new arrivals have stated that they have left Myanmar solely because of economic hardship. However,
it is concerned that others are in fact people fleeing serious human rights
violations in Myanmar, and therefore would be in need of protection. Indeed, it should be noted that the
distinction between economic hardship and violations of
civil and political rights is not necessarily a clear one; ,for example, many of the Rohingyas have been unable
to make a living due to continuing (unpaid)
forced labour in Rakhine state. Given the grave human
rights situation in Myanmar, it is
impossible to state in a blanket fashion that Rohingyas are only fleeing economic hardship and therefore are not worthy of
protection.
Rohingya refugees who arrived in Bangladesh in 1991 and 1992
fled massive human rights violations in
the Rakhine State, including extrajudicial
executions, torture, forced labour and portering. The range and extent of these abuses constituted
widespread repression of the
Rohingyas by the Burmese security forces, resulting in huge numbers of refugees fleeing the country. This pattern of repression occurred in
the context of the Burmese authorities'
denial of citizenship rights to the Rohingyas. Under the 1982 Citizenship Law most Rohingyas along with members
of other ethnic minorities are not recognized
as citizens. As a result, Rohingyas do not enjoy the right to freedom of movement within Myanmar. Amnesty International is
concerned that the 1982 Citizenship law
is being used to deny Rohingyas and members of other ethnic minorities their
basic rights.
Although the human rights situation in the Rakhine State has marginally improved, forced labour, portering
and forcible relocations under harsh conditions continue to be reported. Such practices are common throughout Myanmar,
but members of ethnic minorities such as the
Rohingyas are particularly vulnerable. Amnesty International has received reliable reports from eye-witnesses who have
recently observed forced labour of civilians in the Rakhine State. According to
witnesses Rohingyas and other ethnic minorities including the Arakanese and Mro, were forced to
work on roads and bridges by the Burmese security forces in December 1996 and during the first half of 1997.
Because civilians were forced to perform labour for substantial amounts of
time, they were often unable to provide for
their families. The border patrol administration in the Rakhine
State, known as the Na Sa Ka, were reportedly one of the security forces
responsible for seizing them as labourers.
The long-term human rights crisis in
Myanmar has meant that tens of thousands of refugees
from various ethnic minorities have fled to neighbouring countries, primarily Bangladesh and Thailand. Such massive outflows have
created an enormous burden for these two
countries, who are under pressure to provide safe havens for these people with
very limited resources themselves. Bangladesh needs continued international
support to ensure that refugees are
given protection and an appropriate level of treatment. Mass flights of refugees are an international responsibility;
countries that happen to be the nearest point of safety should not be left alone to bear that
responsibility. The refugee burdens Bangladesh and Thailand face make it even more imperative for the international
community, including both governments and intergovernmental organizations, to
increase pressure on the SLORC to improve
its human rights record.
These new arrivals joined over 21,000 Rohingyas living
in camps in Bangladesh, the remainder of the over 250,000 refugees who had fled
in the early 1990s.[1]
The others were repatriated back to Myanmar under an April
1992 agreement between the Bangladeshi authorities
and the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC, Myanmar's military authorities). That agreement, which came under
harsh international criticism, did not provide
for the involvement of the UNHCR. In May 1993 UNHCR signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Bangladesh
and in April 1994 initiated an organized
repatriation process. In November 1993 UNHCR was granted permission to
establish a presence in the Rakhine State in order to
monitor the status of the returnees. Since
then tens of thousands of Rohingyas have been repatriated, although various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have expressed
concern that the repatriation operation has gone forward without a fundamental improvement in the human rights
situation in Myanmar, and have questioned whether the repatriation of
many of these refugees was truly voluntary.
The SLORC has reportedly agreed to accept only 7,500
of the remaining 21,800 Rohingyas; UNHCR has
requested the Bangladeshi authorities to allow the remaining 14,000 Rohingyas to settle in Bangladesh.[2]
The repatriation process stopped in April 1997, but on 20
and 22 July 1997 the Bangladeshi security forces forcibly returned 399
Rohingyas from Kutapalong
and Nayapara camps After protests from UNHCR, who had
been denied access to the refugees, the Government of Bangladesh agreed not to
return any Rohingyas against their
will. However the government stated at the same time that none of the Rohingya refugees would be allowed to remain in Bangladesh
permanently.
The fundamental basis of Amnesty
International's refugee work is the principle of non-refoulement, which
forbids the returning of any person to a country where he or she would be at risk of serious human rights violations.
As part of its human rights mandate, it opposes the refoulement of any person to a
country where he or she would be at risk of falling
victim to imprisonment as a prisoner of conscience,[3]
torture, "disappearance", extrajudicial execution or the death
penalty. It should be noted that the principle of non refoulement includes non-rejection at
the frontier.
It should also be noted that the principle of non-refoulement is widely recognized as a principle of customary international law, binding on
all states. Bangladesh has yet to become a party to
the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) or its 1967 Protocol. However,
Bangladesh, like all other countries, is still bound by this principle of international law, and should afford
effective and durable protection
from refoulement to all those who would be
at risk of serious human rights violations.
Bangladesh is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR Excom), which is the only international forum where refugee issues are discussed
in a comprehensive manner. The Excom meets every year
and reaches Conclusions regarding important issues of refugee protection and assistance, and has on numerous
occasions reaffirmed the importance of the principle
of non-refoulement. Amnesty International is concerned that Bangladesh,
which sits on the Excom and therefore plays a crucial role in setting standards
of refugee protection, is contravening
the very standards Excom has upheld.
THE SITUATION OF NEWLY-ARRIVED ROHINGYAS
Estimates
of Rohingyas who have recently arrived in Bangladesh in the first half of 1997 vary widely from 2,000 to 20,000. Because these new
arrivals tend not to enter refugee camps and instead stay in local villages, it
is impossible to be more precise about their numbers. In June UNHCR in Bangladesh expressed its concerns
about new arrivals: "These people are facing different
problems, including excessive high rice prices, forced labour and excessive taxation, besides discrimination in their freedom of movement.
"[4]
Local Bangladeshi authorities also reported in June that
there was an influx of at least 5,000 Rohingyas in one
month alone, stating that 500 of them had been sent back across the border over a two week period.
Lieutenant Colonel Khaled Reza, a commander of
Bangladesh's border security force, said: "If
caught, we are pushing the infiltrators or sending them
to jails ".[5]
In Cox's Bazaar Police Superintendent Matiur Rahman
said that more than 2,000
newly-arrived Rohingyas had been sent back to Myanmar "in the last few months".[6]
Amnesty International is concerned that Rohingya
asylum-seekers have been denied access to local
UNHCR personnel, and that people may have been returned to a situation where they would be at risk of serious human
rights violations.
On 18 July 1997 UNHCR asked the Government of
Bangladesh for access to the new
arrivals, stating: "We again call on the Bangladesh
government to allow us to interview these people and
establish who might be deserving of UNHCR protection". A UNHCR
spokesperson also said that many of the new arrivals had left Myanmar for
purely economic reasons, but that
others had cited excessive forced labour and torture.[7]
However the government has continued to deny UNHCR access to newly-arrived
refugees.
Thousands of Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh in the first
half of 1996 as well. UNHCR estimated that some
5,500 left Myanmar while some non-governmental organizations put the number at 10,000. This group of
Rohingyas gave the same reasons for its flight as the most recent arrivals - the high price of food and
extensive forced labour. Some of them were also
sent back by the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR). In April 1996 when a BDR patrol
attempted to push a boatload of Rohingyas back across the Naaf
River, which marks the border, the boat
capsized and 15 of them drowned.
THE SITUATION OF ROHINGYAS IN BANGLADESHI CAMPS
Although the Government of Bangladesh had planned to close
the two remaining camps housing Rohingya
refugees[8]
at the end of June 1997, delays in the repatriation process have meant that
over 21,000 are still living in these camps. The SLORC delayed the process
until 15 July 1997, when they
agreed to receive only those of the 21,000 refugees who had been cleared by
them by a 15 August deadline. Amnesty International is particularly concerned about the fate of the 14,000 refugees who have been
told by the Government of Bangladesh that
they cannot remain, yet have apparently not been permitted to return by the
SLORC.
According to reports, on 20 July the Bangladeshi
security forces forcibly returned 187 refugees from Nayapara camp across the Naaf River to Myanmar. Apparently no one volunteered for
repatriation, so the authorities picked mostly women and children to be sent back. The police had entered Nayapara
camp on 19 July to search for refugees cleared for return, but some of the refugees resisted by throwing stones. The
police responded by throwing tear gas. A
group of refugees singled out for return was locked in a building overnight the day before the repatriation. The
next day the authorities reportedly forced this group of refugees on to
awaiting buses, beating some of them and separating families in the process. Many of the men whose families were
returned had hidden outside the camps and so were not sent back at the same
time. Refugees who were ill or disabled were also forced to return with no
medical supervision.
After the refugees from Nayapara
Camp were taken by bus to the river, a group in that camp attacked security forces with canes, iron rods,
and bows and arrows, who responded by firing shots
and lobbing tear gas canisters. As a result, 15-20 people were reportedly injured, including several policemen. A
group of refugees was arrested at the
time, although Amnesty International has no further
details about its status.
There was no reported violence in Kutapalong
camp. The second forcible return took
place on 22 July, when the security forces met with no resistance, although
UNHCR was not allowed access to
the refugees. 212 refugees from Kutapalong camp were
returned on this occasion. The same day UNHCR protested to the Government of
Bangladesh about the fact that they were
not allowed to screen the refugees medically or interview them privately.
After these events refugees in the camps began to
refuse to accept food rations and
medical care at health centres. Sit-in demonstrations by some refugees also
took place, protesting the events of
20 and 22 July. Demands included granting Rohingyas full Burmese citizenship, an end to human rights violations and
other forms of persecution against Muslims in Myanmar, and the restoration of democracy there. Reports
indicated that many of the refugees were coerced into refusing food by militant
refugee camp leaders. UNHCR stated
that some women who attempted to accept food were beaten.[9]
Scores of refugees reportedly became ill due to lack of food and medical care.
Both the UNHCR and the government attempted to persuade refugees to accept food
and to reassure them that they would
not be returned against their will. According to reports, on 31 July refugees
at Kutapalong camp began to take their rations, but some residents
of Nayapara camp still refused to do so. where the
atmosphere remained tense. At the time of writing refugees at Nayapara-I (one section of Nayapara
Camp) were still refusing rations and medical services, reportedly because of continuing threats from militant
elements in that camp.
The
Government of Bangladesh announced that the repatriation process was suspended and that they would negotiate with the SLORC
to extend the 15 August deadline for the return of the refugees. The government also announced that it
would cooperate with UNHCR and that no one would
be sent back against their will. Amnesty International welcomes this commitment on the part of the Bangladeshi
authorities to co-operate with UNHCR.
However Amnesty International believes that repatriation should not be considered as a viable option by the authorities until
and unless it has been independently determined that the human rights situation
in the refugees' country of origin (in this case, Myanmar) has undergone a fundamental improvement. This
is far from the case in Myanmar, where the human
rights situation remains extremely grave. While refugees may make an individual decision to return for whatever
reason, repatriation should in no way be encouraged
or promoted to refugees in the absence of an improvement in the human rights circumstances in Myanmar. Until this time, refugees
should be given effective and durable protection.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the past 18 months, as Rohingya
refugees have been repatriated from Bangladeshi camps to the Rakhine State, other
Rohingyas have fled into Bangladesh, some because of human rights violations such as widespread forced labour.
Some of these new arrivals were among the
original quarter of a million people who fled in the early 1990s, and Amnesty International is concerned that this indicates that
repatriation may have been premature. It is also nearly impossible to make a
simple distinction in every case between economic hardship and human rights violations - many of those
who have fled do not have enough to
eat, but this is partly because forced unpaid labour under harsh conditions
prevents them from earning a living.
These are difficult individual assessments which do not lend themselves to sweeping generalisations.
In view of this large outflow and of credible reports
of continuing human rights violations,
Amnesty International urges the Government of Bangladesh to allow UNHCR
complete and immediate access to both the new arrivals and camp residents, and
allow that organization to assess their
protection needs. Amnesty International also calls on members of the international community, including governments
and intergovernmental organizations, to increase
pressure on the SLORC to end human rights violations against members of ethnic minorities in Myanmar.
Amnesty International urges the
Government of Bangladesh to take the following steps:
1. Take
immediate measures towards ratifying the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
2. Abide scrupulously by the
principle of non-refoulement, including the principle of non-rejection
at the frontier, and ensure that no person is sent back to a country where
he or she would be at risk of serious human rights violations.
3. Refrain
from promoting repatriation to refugees until and unless it has been independently determined that
the human rights situation in Myanmar has undergone
a fundamental improvement.
4. Investigate reports of beatings of refugees, mostly women and children,
in the course of forcible repatriation,
and bring to justice any security personnel found
responsible.
5.
Allow UNHCR immediate and complete access to newly
arrived refugees who are staying in villages in southeast Bangladesh. Without
UNHCR access, refugees will not
be
able to have their protection needs assessed and will not be able to receive humanitarian
assistance.
6. Allow the
UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, Chief Justice Rajsoomer
Lallah, immediate access to all Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, in order that he can
interview
them about the human rights situation inside the Rakhine
State. This step is particularly important in view of the fact that
currently the SLORC has not
permitted
Chief Justice Lallah to visit Myanmar, which is part
of his mandate.
[1]
For a discussion of the human rights
violations which caused the Rohingyas to flee, please refer to UNION OF
MYANMAR (Burma): Human rights violations against Muslims in the Rakhine (Arakan) State, May
1992, (AI Index ASA 16/06/92)
[2] Reuter,July 18 1997.
[3] Amnesty International considers people to be prisoners of conscience if they have been detained for their beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth or other status, and if they have not used or advocated violence.
[4] Agence France Presse, 17 June 1997.
[5] Reuter, 23 June 1997.
[6] Reuter, 26 July 1997
[7] Agence France Presse, 18 July 1997
[8] There are some 8,000 refugees in Kutapalong camp and some 13,000 in Nayapara camp
[9] Agence France Presse, 29 July 1997