During the pandemic, forced return of migrants has become a major issue of concern for intergovernmental bodies and the global civil society engaged in migration issues. The United Nations Network on Migration (UNNM) has urged states “to suspend forced returns during the pandemic, in order to protect the health of migrants and communities, and uphold the human rights of all migrants, regardless of status”. UNNM has called for a halt to arbitrary expulsions and reiterated that their “protection needs must be individually assessed; and that the rule of law and due process must be observed”. It reminded the states that these obligations under international law “can never be put on hold and are vital to any successful approach to combatting Covid-19 for the benefit of all”.

In separate memos to the governments of six Gulf states, a coalition of civil society organisations and trade unions, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, urged those states to “refrain from arbitrary deportations of migrant workers… as a means to contain Covid-19”. Closer to home, five leading civil society organisations including Migrant Forum in Asia have noted that “the repatriation procedures have been undertaken hastily by countries of both origin and destination, without any proper redress mechanism… This is a gross violation of labour rights on a large scale”.

Expressing concern that some destination countries are exerting pressure on the origin countries to take back the latter’s nationals, the Bangladesh Civil Society for Migrants in a memo implored the UN Secretary General “to appeal to those destination countries (of the Gulf region) to refrain from pursuing such a policy at this critical juncture”.

There are legal, moral and ethical issues with the way the forced returns are being pursued by the Gulf states. It has also been noted that forced returns can intensify public health risks for everyone. With overstretched public health systems, almost all these countries have little capacity to protect the returnees and their communities through testing, self-isolation and institutional quarantine.

In all likelihood, despite the pleas and supplications, most countries of origin (CoO) of migrant workers including Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka and the Philippines will experience large scale return of their migrant workforce once the flights resume. Therefore, it has become imperative that concerned authorities of the CoO, including Bangladesh, develop strategies to competently negotiate return with the Countries of Destination (CoD). A collective initiative by the CoO, perhaps under the aegis of the Colombo Process, is likely to yield better outcomes than bilateral negotiations. The origin countries also need to frame the reintegration policies for forced migrants. Documenting the returnees is one of the first tasks in such a process.

The core element in any repatriation negotiation between the CoO and CoD should be upholding the rights and dignity of migrant workers. All those concerned with repatriation (labour, health, immigration authorities) must guarantee and verify that no worker is deported without receiving compensation, pending wages and other dues, testing and treatment for Covid-19, identity papers and other related documentation. If clearance of outstanding dues is not possible due to prevailing conditions, CoD should commit to ensuring that employers will settle all outstanding claims as soon as the situation permits. As the primary frontline stakeholder, missions of CoO have particular obligations to ensure compliance of labour and international standards of the concerned CoD.

While negotiating return, Bangladesh should insist that CoD declare amnesty to those who are in irregular status and allow applications for visa extensions for the workers who could not apply on time due to Covid-19 to facilitate their return to home countries. The cases of workers who were forced to be in undocumented status (by their Kafeels or other reasons) should be investigated and the concerned workers be provided due redress before they are repatriated.

Bangladesh should ensure that all migrant workers be tested for Covid-19 free of charge, regardless of visible symptoms prior to departure or embarkation (as has been negotiated by Sri Lanka). Only those workers should be permitted to return who test negative. The CoD should ensure that the migrant workers have access to quarantine facilities during the period in which test results are under process. Due care must be taken so that workers remain protected and are not exposed to possible infection or transmission in such holding areas.

The cases of detained migrants should be dealt on a case-by-case basis with due diligence by Bangladesh Missions and the Labour Department of the concerned CoD. Their irregular status should not be in the way of accessing testing and treatment of Covid-19 prior to their return.

The Bangladesh missions should establish a mechanism to register returning migrants. Among other things, it should record personal details of the worker, name and address of the employer, type of work, skill level and outstanding claims of wages and end of service or other benefits (if any). Ideally, if there are outstanding claims or unresolved labour disputes that the worker is involved in, the missions may secure a power of attorney from the worker so that those could be pursued by the missions in his/her absence in future.

While transporting the workers, Bangladesh should insist that either the concerned employer or the government should be made to bear the costs of air travel. In no instance should forced deportees be made liable to pay for their return flight. Both parties are to ensure strict compliance of the World Health Organisation’s guidelines pertaining to air travel including seating allocation, handling of cases suspected during flight, reduction of exposure and limiting transmission, availability and use of personal protective equipment and air recirculation system.

Upon arrival in Bangladesh, all returning migrant workers should be obliged to undergo Covid-19 tests, as tests conducted prior to their departures may provide false results (a practice that the Philippines has introduced). Appropriate messages targeting the returnees and members of their families should be developed so that they adhere to the mandatory 14 day home quarantine. Tracing and tracking mechanisms should be in place so that the government can monitor if the returnees adhere to home quarantine rules. Suitable institutional quarantine facilities should be established for those who show symptoms of infection when they arrive. Those placed in such facilities should be provided with food and water, appropriate accommodation including sleeping arrangements and clothing, protection for baggage and other possessions, and suitable medical treatment. They should be given the opportunity to contact their families and be treated with respect, maintaining their dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms and minimising any discomfort or distress.

Effective reintegration policy necessitates that the government develop a comprehensive policy that addresses stigmatisation of returnees as carriers of virus through disseminating appropriate social messages. It should also encompass developing a database of returnee workers with information on their personal profile, skills and language competence, so that those could be linked with potential employers both at home and abroad; creating opportunities for re-skilling of migrants commensurate with potential demands, both within the country and outside; encouraging banks and other financial institutions to extend loans to returnee migrants at low interest and providing them with financial literacy and basic book-keeping, and help establish mechanisms to market their products.

The reintegration policy should also have provisions for social protection of migrant workers and members of their families who are severely affected by the pandemic, drawing upon contributions of the government, insurance programmes and Wage Earners’ Welfare Fund. The special needs of women returnee migrants should also receive due consideration. Needless to say, the prime stakeholder, the migrants, and the civil society should be engaged from the very start of the process of charting out a reintegration policy.

Despite a lot of good intentions and a plethora of policies, laws and institutions, migrant workers of Bangladesh have largely remained unprotected and underserved. Covid-19 has provided an opportunity to rectify the situation. Planning a comprehensive return and reintegration strategy for migrant workers can be the beginning of such redemption.

C R Abrar is an academic. He is the Coordinator of Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU). He acknowledges the insights gained from “Between Peril and Pandemic: MFA Policy Document 3” and deliberations of the RMMRU eSymposium “Migrant Workers of South Asia: Experiences of Return, Repatriation and Deportation” on June 24.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar Yanghee Lee, pictured in Kuala Lumpur on 18 July, 2019. Photo: AFP

By C R Abrar
May 19 2020 (IPS-Partners)

“We all knew that [Aung San Suu Kyi] was put on a pedestal or portrayed as the icon of democracy and human rights, but ever since [her party] has taken office [after the 2015 election] and ever since she took the office of the State Councillor, all of her actions and her words, statements point otherwise”, noted Professor Yanghee Lee, in one of her last conversations with Al Jazeera as the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Burma. “Perhaps the world didn’t really know who she was”, she said.

At a time when the world, including neighbouring Malaysia and Thailand, have shunned the Rohingya (acknowledged as the most persecuted minority in the world), at a time when the Burmese state audaciously tramples the whole corpus of international human rights instruments being aided and abetted by major powers; at a time when those who stand for reason, rule of law and justice feel betrayed by the high and mighty of the world, Yanghee Lee stood firm as a beacon of hope.

A developmental psychologist and professor with decades of involvement in the UN’s rights bodies, Lee held the mandate of the Special Rapporteur from 2014 until end of April this year. Over the years, she made extensive visits to the region, including Burma. Her objective reporting on the human rights situation in Rakhine and the rest of Burma did not augur well and during their last one-to-one meeting, the de facto head of Burmese government Suu Kyi threatened visa denial if the UN Special Rapporteur kept pushing the “UN line”. Lee refused to be cowed by the former human rights icon’s interference and Suu Kyi delivered on her threat—she has been denied entry to the country since 2017. Lee viewed the Burmese decision “as a strong indication that there must be something terribly awful happening in Rakhine, as well as in the rest of the country”. While holding office, she was one of the very few global public figures who unwaveringly championed the Rohingyas’ quest for dignity, justice and protected return to their homeland.

Yanghee Lee’s tenure came to be largely dominated by the Burmese state’s attempt to complete the “unfinished business” of Rohingyas’ physical and historical existence, the Burmese equivalent of the Final Solution, in the early fall of 2017. The genocidal terror that was unleashed resulted in the exodus of at least 750,000 people into neighbouring Bangladesh. It was presented as a clearance operation of “ARSA terrorists”, a pretext enthusiastically accepted by Islamophobic western governments, world media and “security experts”. Choosing to ignore the genocidal nature of these “security clearance operations”, the emerging chorus of policy and media discourses faulted the Burmese military for “disproportionate and excessive use of force”, despite Lee calling out the “the hallmarks of a genocide” by Burma. As a matter of fact, on August 10, 2017, at least two weeks prior to the alleged ARSA attack on Burmese police outposts, Lee warned of the buildup and ominous movement of security forces in northern Arakan and appealed for restraint and respecting human rights.

In her parting statement to the Human Rights Council, Lee noted, “(w)hen I took up my mandate in 2014, I had thought that by 2020 a rights-respecting democracy would have been firmly established in Myanmar… Rather than a nation that protects human rights, I observe rights violations that continue to routinely occur and a country that stands accused of the most serious crimes under international law.”

Lee proposed ways to move towards an equal, tolerant and pluralistic society, including through victim-centered transitional justice mechanisms. Among other things, the UN expert underscored the need to bring the entire government and security forces under civilian control and initiate extensive legal reforms—including of the Constitution, land laws, the Citizenship Law and laws that violate fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, assembly and religion. “An end to impunity is the lynchpin for Myanmar to succeed in its transition to democracy. Perpetrators of human rights violations and international crimes must be held accountable,” she argued.

Yanghee Lee was appalled at the world’s reaction to the Rohingya plight—particularly that of the Security Council, which could not manage to agree on a single unified stance on an unfolding genocide in real time. She made her feelings loud and clear. Lee felt it was “shameful” that China and Russia, being UN security council members, have not taken any action against Burma. “China cannot be a global leader if it ignores such atrocities,” she noted. The Special Rapporteur also said the US decision to impose sanctions against senior military leaders in Burma did not go “far enough” and recommended these be tougher and applied to more generals.

She was disappointed at the response of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to the developments in northern Arakan. The situation posed an increasing risk to the peace and security of countries of the region, she warned, urging them to prioritise human rights in its dealings with Burma. She expressed regret at the lack of response from the Government of India on her request to visit the country to meet refugees there. She reminded them that it is incumbent on member states to respect mandates established by the Human Rights Council and provide timely and reasonable answers to such requests.

The UN’s role in addressing the Rohingya plight has been palpable. Lee personally appealed to Secretary General Antonio Guterres for an international investigation, to no avail. In October 2017, when The Guardian reported the scandalous news of Renata Lok-Dessalien, UN Resident Coordinator in Burma, compromising UN Human Rights Up Front policy by prioritising a cozy relationship with Burma’s rulers, Guterres relented and commissioned former Guatemalan foreign minister Gert Rosenthal to do an internal assessment of the UN’s performance in Burma. The Rosenthal Report condemned the organisation’s “obviously dysfunctional performance” over the past decade and noted “the overall responsibility was of a collective nature; in other words it can truly be characterised as a systemic failure of the United Nations.” Accordingly, no UN official was held accountable, and Lok-Dessallien was even rewarded with a larger portfolio when she was appointed head of the UN in India!

Yanghee Lee was unequivocal in expressing her disappointment of the UN system in dealing with the Rohingya issue, particularly the UN’s technical agencies in the New York headquarters and in Burma. She was brutally honest about how she felt about the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by the Burmese government, UNHCR and UNDP in early June 2018 purportedly “to assist the process of repatriation from Bangladesh”. The document was not made publicly available, nor was there any transparency about its terms. UN’s failure to defend the self-identity of the Rohingya and their refugee status appalled her. “I am dismayed about the fact that the parties to the MoU, including the United Nations agencies involved in this process, have apparently failed to recognise Rohingya living in Bangladesh as refugees and as Rohingya”.

The tendency of concerned states, including Burma and Bangladesh, to deny any role to Rohingya refugees was of grave concern for her. “Most frightful … is the fact that the Rohingya refugees have not been included in any of the discussions … around this MoU nor consulted in relation to the repatriation process as a whole”, she noted, posing the uncomfortable but pointed question to the Council—”how can the process of repatriation be voluntary with the people who the process is for excluded from it? How can you be sure that any return is based on individual informed consent?”

Conveying the common view among Rohingya refugees to the Council, Lee said “it is futile to speak about their safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return unless the root causes of their exodus are properly addressed”. She argued that to ensure such repatriation, the international community must ensure that Burma dismantles the system of discrimination against the Rohingya by law, policy and practices that continue to exist, and guarantee fundamental human rights to them, including by restoring their citizenship rights and property.

Helping lay the foundation for global justice for both Rohingyas and other victims within the UN’s system of accountability has been the single most important contribution of Professor Lee to Burma’s oppressed communities (not just the Rohingya), especially given that the country does not have national or domestic justice and accountability mechanisms that recognise and are capable of processing the gravest crimes in international law, such as crimes against humanity and genocide. Her persistent demand for an independent investigation into Burma’s state crimes against the Rohingya led to setting up of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFMM) by the UN that was succeeded by the creation of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) by the Human Rights Council in September 2018. The IIMM became operational on August 30, 2019—it is mandated to collect evidence of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law and prepare files for criminal prosecution.

Despite widespread skepticism, it was the relentless effort of Lee that led to the huge success in setting up of an accountability mechanism. She even wrote the TOR of the personnel of IIMM and prepared its budget. All these were achieved with the meagre support of a desk officer and a research assistant. Acknowledging her significant role, Rohingya genocide scholar Maung Zarni succinctly noted “No Yanghee Lee, no Fact Finding Mission and The Gambia-vs-Myanmar case at the International Court of Justice”.

In our meeting during her last visit to Bangladesh, she underscored the need for sustained engagement of civil society against all odds. Brushing aside my shyness, I told her that we celebrate her good fight against a system that stands for the status quo and the powerful, and has repeatedly failed to deliver justice. I added, she was the role model for those who stand for justice for the wretched of the earth. Maintaining her graceful composure, she smiled. Gracias, Professor Yanghee Lee.

C R Abrar is an academic. He is the Coordinator of Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

By C R Abrar
May 11 2020 (IPS-Partners)

A spectre is haunting the conscientious citizens of Bangladesh—the spectre of the Digital Security Act, 2018 (DSA). By now the law has become synonymous with curtailment of freedom of expression and repression. The recent developments of involuntary disappearance, re-appearance and subsequent detention of several commentators and social activists have raised the alarm if indeed we as a nation are shying away from upholding one of the cardinal principles of the Muktijuddher Chetona (the spirit of the Liberation War) to freely express our views.

A few recent cases will corroborate the above statement. On May 6, businessman Mushtaq Ahmed and cartoonist Ahammed Kabir Kishore were sent to jail and Dhaka Stock Exchange director Minhaz Mannan Emon and Rastra Chinta organiser Didarul Islam Bhuiyan were shown arrested a day after they had reportedly been picked up in a case filed under the DSA allegedly for spreading “rumours”. Five persons based in Sweden and Germany and six more unnamed persons have been named for “tarnishing'” the image of the father of the nation, “hurting” the spirit of the Liberation War, and “spreading rumours” about COVID-19, army and other security forces among others, on social media.

Cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore, began profiling “life in the time of corona” while Mushtaq started spreading anti-state propaganda, the complaint noted. It was further claimed that authorities had detected “anti-state chatting” in the WhatsApp and Messenger exchanges of Mushtaq, Minhaz and Didarul. The original complaint was annexed with 60 pages of screenshots and a compact disc as evidence, and a 2-page list of articles seized and details of their Facebook profiles, including the URLs.

The government move came at a time when citizens were reeling from the bizarre developments centring the involuntary disappearance of journalist Shafiqul Islam Kajol (March 10), his re-appearance in the border town of Benapole (after 53 days) and subsequent placement in detention. The authorities’ attempt to present Kajol as an absconder from justice failed to gain traction. The CCTV footage of some people surrounding his motorbike just prior to his disappearance, the initial refusal of two police stations to register the family’s attempt to file a case, the lack of progress in investigation, improperly detaining him under Section 54 of Criminal Procedure Code to secure time to frame other, publicly humiliating him by handcuffing his hands behind his back (a practice reserved for those accused of violent crimes such as rape, murder, terrorism and the like) and “law enforcement agencies’ overdrive to keep him in prison” at a time when courts are dysfunctional, all point to the fact that Kajol has been deprived of due process of law and may perhaps be a victim for freely expressing his views on matters of public interest.

Detaining individuals on charges of “spreading rumours”, “tarnishing image” and “hurting spirit of Liberation War” for an unstipulated period in a situation when they cannot seek protection of higher judiciary amounts to arbitrary action. It may be recalled that initially Kajol had been detained under Section 54, violating the guidelines framed by the High Court and upheld by the Appellate Division. As the hearing of the government’s review petition is still pending those guidelines continue to remain in force. Therefore continued detention of Kajol under Section 54 appears to be in breach of the law.

It is a matter of the courts to decide whether charges brought against the above accused for “spreading rumour”, “tarnishing image” and “hurting” a sentiment are tenable or not. In most instances of involuntary disappearances, including the ones above, does not the denial of law enforcement agencies of any knowledge of whereabouts of victims amount to making a false statement? Evidence is replete that in a number of cases victims are shown as under arrest if and when they are produced before the court, some weeks and even months after they were reportedly disappeared. Should not the errant members of law enforcement agencies be held accountable for such gross misconduct?

These recent actions of law enforcement agencies have triggered widespread protests. Rights groups documenting the excesses committed by state agencies have noted that following the outbreak of COVID-19, there has been an increase in instances of involuntary disappearance, extra-judicial killing and human rights violations. In most cases the actions were justified on ground of tackling rumours. The feeling is pervasive among rights activists that COVID-19 may have come as a boon to that section in the administration that is disposed to remain unaccountable and non-transparent, and thus quash dissent and public scrutiny.

The country is going through a testing time. It is the need of the hour to face the COVID-19 challenge in unison. The gradual rise in the infection curve with no sign of receding and the worsening conditions of the masses reinforce the fear that we are yet to chart out appropriate course of action. Framing a suitable response necessitates discussion and debate among all stakeholders and that entails tolerance of diverse views and free flow of information. The watchdog role of civil society only ensures transparency and accountability of the public functionaries and also of non-government initiatives engaged in humanitarian assistance. Those in the administration should not only welcome citizens’ engagement but create enabling conditions to facilitate the process. At the very least, it entails state’s unfettered pledge to uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by the constitution. All responses to COVID-19 must therefore be “evidence-based, legal, necessary to protect public health, non-discriminatory, time-bound and proportionate”.

In order to do away with the prevailing dreary and fatalist frame of mind of the people it is incumbent on the authorities to immediately release those detained under the DSA, make every effort to recover those who became victims of involuntary disappearance, and not proceed any further with the frivolous cases of defamation. Scrapping the DSA and instituting a credible commission of enquiry with adequate authority to look into the cases of involuntary disappearance and extra-judicial killings will go a long way to re-establishing citizens’ trust in the state.

As the custodian of the constitution, the Supreme Court may consider taking immediate measures to ensure people can seek its protection without any hindrance and (in the interim, until such a system is put in place) advise the executive branch to strictly uphold fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the constitution and act in accordance with the law, and only in accordance with the law.

CR Abrar is an academic.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

Smoke is seen billowing on the Myanmar border as Rohingya refugees walk on the shore after crossing the Bangladesh-Myanmar border by boat through the Bay of Bengal, in Shah Porir Dwip. PHOTO: REUTERS

By C R Abrar
Nov 14 2018 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

Mid-November has arrived and insecurity and uncertainty have descended over Rohingya refugees in Ukhia and Teknaf. The impending deadline has also elicited expressions of deep concern from UN independent experts and rights organisations.

After much foot-dragging on flimsy grounds, the Burmese authorities finally approved a list of about 2,000 Rohingyas for repatriation. On October 30, Bangladeshi and Burmese authorities agreed to begin the long-awaited repatriation process in mid-November.

The failure of the Burmese authorities to create an enabling condition for the refugees to return is the foremost factor behind the call for a halt to any repatriation at this stage. No meaningful change has occurred in the Burmese state’s policy towards the Rohingya people. The demand for restoration of citizenship rights has gone unheeded; Rohingyas are still not recognised as a national ethnic group; the discriminatory legal and administrative apparatuses that were set up over the decades creating an apartheid-like situation remain intact; their land and properties remain confiscated by the state or have been given away to Buddhist Rakhines; those who committed heinous crimes against the Rohingyas continue to remain in command positions and enjoy absolute impunity; escorted by the law enforcement agencies, the ultra-nationalist Buddhist vigilantes still dominate the streets of Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung; Rohingyas in internally displaced camps continue to perish slowly for lack of food, potable water, medicine and livelihood opportunities; and the Kofi Annan recommendations, the much-celebrated and cited panacea for Rohingya salvation, continue to gather dust.

It is no surprise that the news of impending repatriation has hit the Rohingya community in Bangladesh hard. The assurances of the Bangladesh government that no one will be forced to return against their wish and that the UN refugee agency will be engaged in ascertaining the voluntariness of returnees have done little to assuage the concerns of these traumatised people. A Reuters report (November 9, 2018) documents the reaction of 20 of the 2,000 Rohingyas whose names have appeared in the first list for repatriation. Abdur Rahim, 47, who owned two acres of land in Arakan, emphatically says: “I’ll just consume poison if I am forced to go back,” and goes on to demand, “What is the guarantee that we will not be persecuted again?” His apprehension resonates in the statement of Nur Kaida, 25. She says it “would be better to die in the camps rather than go back and get killed or raped.”

Last week dozens of Rohingyas were apprehended by the Bangladesh Coast Guards while attempting to go to Malaysia through the maritime route. For some the dangerous sea route would be worth the risk to avert repatriation to the killing fields of Arakan. Mohammad Wares, 75, one of those whose name appeared in the list, asserts it is better than going back. “Why are they sending us back?” he asks. Poignantly, he proposes, “They may as well throw us into the sea.”

Instead of creating a congenial condition for Rohingyas’ return, on November 8, the Director General of Asean Affairs of Burma’s foreign ministry claimed that 54 of 6,472 Rohingyas on a list provided by Bangladesh authorities had been identified as having been involved in “terrorism”. He did not specify the type, timing or location of the alleged terrorist activities. The DG further noted that his country sent a list of terrorists to Bangladesh with a request to take action against them. If they are sent back, they would “have to take action against them according to the law,” he said. Thus it is clear, on the one hand, that Burma is presenting to the world that it is serious about taking back the Rohingyas, while on the other, it has not only failed to create the minimum conditions for Rohingyas’ return but is engaged in subterfuges to undermine any meaningful repatriation.

Instead of promoting inter-communal harmony to facilitate refugees’ return, the Burmese government has been engaged in a relentless campaign to present Rohingyas as terrorists. On October 26, Thayninga Institute for Strategic Studies, a pro-military think tank in Yangon, hosted a seminar that was attended by Rick Heizman, a controversial American activist whose anti-Muslim views have made him popular with the Burmese nationalists. Earlier in September, Burma’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent United Nations agencies and at least one foreign aid group web links to a recent film by Heizman that claims Rakhine State is the target of an Islamic plot to destroy Buddhism.

In shoring up the Burmese government’s implicit agenda to deny Rohingyas their rightful claims in Arakan, on November 4, in Akyab, the capital of Burma’s western state of Arakan, Buddhist protesters held a rally opposing repatriation of the Rohingyas and the latter’s claim to residence in the state. Earlier on October 14, the military-backed Buddhist monk Wirathu at a rally in Yangon attacked Rohingyas as “terrorists” and declared that he would take up arms to oppose any UN or international “interference”. Last week leaders of Arakan National Party (ANP), the dominant political party of ethnic Rakhines, informed visiting US diplomats that returning Rohingya refugees will not be placed in the northern Maungdaw district region, their ancestral land. “This proposal was approved by the Rakhine state parliament as well,” said the secretary of ANP.

The duplicity of the Burmese regime is also obvious in the case involving seven Rohingyas who were deported by India in early October. The Indian Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter after it was convinced by the Indian central government that Burma had accepted the refugees as citizens and had agreed to take them back. However, the men were denied citizenship and the Burmese government compelled them to accept national verification cards. Thus, there is little reason to believe that Burma would treat the Rohingyas who return from Bangladesh any differently under present conditions.

Independent experts have also counselled against any repatriation at this stage. On October 24 at the Security Council, Marzuki Darusman, chair of the UN Independent International Fact Finding Mission on Burma, described the persecution and the killing of Rohingyas as “slow burning genocide” as well as “ongoing genocide”. Another independent UN human rights expert, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma Yanghee Lee, on November 6 urged a halt to the “rushed plans” to repatriate Rohingya refugees on grounds of a lack of guarantee that the refugees wouldn’t face persecution if they returned home.

It is under such dismal conditions that on November 9, 42 humanitarian and civil society agencies working in Arakan and in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh expressed their anxiety about the prospect of any repatriation efforts at this stage. They assert that facilitating repatriation would be premature in conditions where refugees continue to flee Burma and note that refugees’ return to conditions of confinement with no freedom of movement or access to services and livelihood is likely to be permanent. The last thing the refugees want is to live in a situation of 128,000 of fellow Rohingyas and other Muslims who have been incarcerated in central Arakan state over the last six years.

Reports inform that both Bangladesh and Burma were exhorted to begin the repatriation process by some powerful states of the region who have significant interests in shielding the Burmese regime from mounting international criticism of committing mass atrocities, including crimes against humanity and genocide. A token repatriation of a few thousand Rohingyas would be a convenient excuse for them to claim that the bilateral solution is gaining traction and thus there is little role for the international community in the Rohingya affair. Surely, the scenario merits prudent consideration.

While the commitment of the international community in addressing the root cause of Rohingyas’ plight has been severely wanting, Bangladesh stands tall by extending its continued support to the refugees. The prime ministerial pledge to this effort has been consistent and unequivocal. As a follow-up to her 2017 statement to the UN General Assembly session, in which Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina called for the creation of a “safe zone”, in 2018 she publicly affirmed her country’s commitment not to return Rohingya refugees to Burma until the conditions are conducive including “guaranteeing protection, rights, and a pathway to citizenship for all Rohingyas” (statement at the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2018). There is compelling evidence to argue such conditions do not exist now.

CR Abrar teaches international relations at the University of Dhaka.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

Slowly but surely the world is coming to terms with the gruesome reality of Burma’s genocide of the Rohingyas. As early as 2015 London Queen Mary College’s State Crimes Initiative alerted the international community of the ongoing genocide in Arakan. Hardly anyone paid heed to that ominous warning. Eventually, as the situation in Arakan took a turn for the worse, taking a heavy toll on Rohingya lives, livelihood and liberty, the progressive elements among the international community acknowledged the unpalatable reality.

The People’s Tribunal on State Crimes of Myanmar, in two subsequent sittings in March and September 2017 in London and Kuala Lumpur respectively, unequivocally termed the atrocities committed by the Burmese government as “genocide”. The UN special rapporteur on human rights situation of the country has clearly stated that such actions bear the “hallmarks of genocide”. Without mincing his words, the French President Macron has expressed his disgust of Myanmar’s genocide. Even the unpredictable British Foreign Secretary termed it as “industrial scale ethnic cleansing”. The Holocaust Museum acknowledged it as a genocide and expressed solidarity with the victims. Nobel laureates Bishop Tutu and Amartya Sen have labelled it as “slow burning genocide” while the Rohingya diaspora moved the High Court of Australia demanding that visiting State Counsellor of Myanmar Suu Kyi be arrested for crimes against humanity.

Despite this growing trend guided by corporate, military-industrial and strategic interests, many powerful states vie with one another in placating the murderous Burmese authorities, shunning their obligations under international human rights law. Some among those attempt to draw a distinction between the erstwhile icon of freedom, State Counsellor Suu Kyi and the military; though over time actions and statements of the former have rendered such distinction increasingly untenable.

As horrendous narratives of survivors and images of Burmese genocide began to secure space in the global print and electronic media and in the reports of reputed institutions, the lies meted out by the Burmese authorities have been gradually exposed. Satellite imagery and uncovering of mass graves further vindicated the scale of their barbarity.

As an integral component of the genocidal act, the military governments of Burma over the last four decades have launched a campaign denying the ethnic Rohingya identity to the community. The policy is being pursued in full steam under State Counsellor Suu Kyi’s government. The central theme of the campaign has been to deny the legitimacy of the Rohingya claim as an ethnic community and to present the community members as recent illegal entrants from neighbouring densely populated Bangladesh, conveniently labelling them as Islamic terrorists.

The official narrative, though spuriously grounded, is being assiduously pushed forward by the Burmese government. Over the decades the Burmese political-military establishment has been largely successful in incorporating the revisionist history in the country’s academic curricula that celebrate the supremacy of Buddhist-Bhama nationalism and relegate other ethnic groups. In this specious discourse the Rohingya identity has been completely obliterated. Thus generations of Burmese have identified Rohingyas as undesirable Muslim foreigners in the pristine Buddhist land and had no problem in terming them as “kalars” or “Bangalis”. In this official discourse Buddhist Rakhines are presented as indigenous, and Rohingyas as illegal aliens.

Over the last few months a storm has been brewing in the academic circles as the prestigious University of Oxford decided to appoint a French academic Jacques Leider to author a reference article on “Rohingya: Emergence and Vicissitudes of a Communal Muslim Identity in Myanmar” for Oxford University Press’s (OUP) Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Asian History series. Dr Jacques Leider is a well-known adviser to the Burmese military including that of the Armed Forces Historical Museum in Naypyidaw and reputed for his denial of Rohingya identity, their unique history, and the crime of genocide the group has been subjected to for decades. Speaking on public events in Burma, including those sponsored by the Burmese military, Leider is on record reiterating his position that Rakhine identity is a “real ethnic identity”, whereas the Rohingya group identity is an “invented political identity”, created by politically motivated Muslims in the 1950s, in spite of all historical and official records to the contrary.

The Rohingya community, particularly those in the disapora, was baffled at the selection of Leider as an “authority” on their community. For the Rohingya community, Leider writing the piece would constitute “a classic colonial act”, a racist White Man disliked by the subject is commissioned to put together a piece about the subject people, despite the latter’s rejection of him as “an expert” on their affairs, including their identity and history. They find the decision of the Oxford University Press as “adding insult to their injury”.

Eighty academics from different parts of the world, including two Emeritus Professors of Oxford University, Barbara Harriss-White and Barbara Harrell-Bond, Princeton University Professor Richard Falk, MIT Professor and linguist Noam Chomsky, Columbia Professor Gayatri Spivak, eminent peace scholar Johan Galtung, Queen Mary University of London Professor Penny Green, genocide scholar Gregory Stanton and founding editor of the journal The Holocaust in History and Memory Rainer Schulze, have called upon the Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford to desist from commissioning Leider with the task. Their concern was a publication of the reputed university will inflict long-term damage as it will misinform a new generation of students of history and identity. As Rohingya scholar Maung Zarni cogently reminds, “A single racist choice of not recording Rohingyas in the colonial censuses has been used by the genocidal governments and apologists as the basis for exclusion and disenfranchisement of Rohingyas as a group. It was an arbitrary choice out of administrative expedience for taxation and population control on the part of the colonial administrators in Burma, but one with deep and dark consequences”.

Further evidence of Leider’s collusion with the Burmese establishment are his attempts to disparage and derail the Berlin Conference on Myanmar Genocide held last month by manipulating the sensitivity around Shoah (Nazi Genocide of the Jews). Leider portrayed Columbia University Professor Gayatri Spivak, the keynote speaker of the Conference and an ardent champion of the Rohingya cause, as “anti-Semitic”. Spivak has been long known for her “boycott Israel” campaign.

In its much delayed response to another group of concerned East Oxford residents, the Oxford University Press noted that “The history of the Rohingya is a complex and contentious area of research and, as always, the Press’s goal is to represent this history with accuracy, balance, and sensitivity.” OUP defended its editorial board’s decision saying that Dr Jacques Leider was selected for his “subject-matter expertise”. It went to claim that the “decision on whether to accept his article for publication will be informed principally by the outcome of an external peer review exercise and the scholarly assessment of the Press’s editorial board, which is composed of career historians of Asia”.

The OUP’s defence that its strict refereeing process would ensure fairness and accuracy is not acceptable. Critics have noted that the fact that only Rohingya communalism was made the focus of the article suggests that there is at least a tacit acceptance of the opposing Rakhine community’s claim of its own authenticity as an ethnic group. Quite justifiably a case can be made that for all fairness a similar piece examining Rakhine Buddhist communalism be commissioned and published simultaneously with the piece on the Rohingya. That call also went unheeded.

One surely has reason to feel disturbed at the OUP’s selection of the expert who is still hooked on to the binary of “real ethnicity” and “political ethnicity” at a time when Benedict Anderson’s seminal work Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (1983) clearly posits that nations, national sentiments and national identities are all products of collective imaginations.

It is interesting to note that thus far OUP has not approached perhaps the most authoritative scholar on the subject matter, Michael Charney of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) to review Leider’s submission. His University of Michigan doctoral thesis (1999) focused on religious communalism in Rakhine through the colonial period. Charney has sustained his engagement on the issue till this day, and drawing evidence from historical sources maintains that “No group in Arakan would pass the test of ‘indigenous’”.

As the deadline for the publication of the volume looms large, there is little indication that Oxford University authorities have paid attention to the concerns expressed. It is unfortunate that an institution reputed for its academic excellence and deemed as a source of new knowledge “based on facts, accuracy and fairness” has remained adamant on its imprudent decision.

CR Abrar teaches international relations at the University of Dhaka and was a signatory of the letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford. He would like to acknowledge the insights gained from discussions with Burmese dissident scholar Maung Zarni.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

By C R Abrar
Sep 1 2017 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

Rohingyas of northern Arakan are facing yet another round of armed atrocities. Not only are they at the receiving end of indiscriminate use of bullets, bayonets and firing from helicopter gunships; their homes, hearths, livestock, crops and businesses are being consumed by bellowing fire deliberately lit by the Burmese security forces and their Rakhine cohorts. Satellite images validate witness accounts and provide correlation with some reported incidents where residences have allegedly been deliberately torched. The carnage follows a series of coordinated attacks by ethnic Rohingya militants on August 25, 2017 against 25 security posts.

The attack of the Rohingya militant group has been condemned by many states (USA, France, UK and India included) as an effort to “undermine” implementation of Kofi Annan’s peace and mediation initiatives. Implicit in the denunciation is that Annan Commission’s report in all likelihood would contribute to addressing the Rohingya question and the militants have thwarted a golden opportunity for peace (and subsequently, prosperity) to return to the Arakan region. In addition, the militants are being portrayed as armed religious bigots bent on turning Arakan into an independent Islamic state. The recent Bangladesh proposal to Burma to conduct a joint operation has raised questions as to whether Bangladesh also subscribes to this dominant narrative.

This storyline, brilliantly crafted, presumably by the Burmese intelligence agencies, has worked as a diversionary tactic as it shifted the blame for events that are unfolding in the northern Arakan region on the militants. The facts are markedly different.

The Burmese army through its nominated military MPs along with former ruling party USDP and Rakhine nationalist Arakan National Party tried their best to scuttle the establishment of Annan Commission. They did not succeed but continued their moves to undermine the initiative. Ma Ba Tha, the virulent anti-Rohingya and anti-Muslim Buddhist monk, severely opposed the Commission and was instrumental in garnering public opinion against it. The Burmese military commander’s Facebook post after his meeting with Kofi Annan in the morning of the day of the Final Report’s release made it clear he did not agree with its findings. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that powerful forces within the Burmese establishment opposed the Annan Commission and it was they who prepared the blueprint to provoke Rohingya militants to act.

Again, facts speak for themselves. Weeks before Annan Commission released its final report, the Burmese high command was busy shoring up the Light Infantry Division 33, “notorious for its merciless and indiscriminate killings of civilians in any urban unrest” to the Arakan region. The military had also trained and armed anti-Rohingya Rakhine villagers in firearms and fighting, blockading the predominantly Rohingya region of north Arakan from accessing food and jobs, and spreading fears of attacks on the INGOs and UN agencies providing humanitarian support. In fact, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Burma raised the alarm as early as August 10, expressing her concerns about beefing up of security apparatus in Arakan and calling on the security forces to be restrained and respectful to human rights. There is little scope to disregard the claims made by the leader of the Arakan Salvation Army that the attack on the police barracks was essentially an act of “self defence” as they were left with no other option.

The misframing of Rohingya militants as “Jihadists” is also a ploy to favour the Burmese perpetrators. Such framing with a religious fervour is to render Rohingya militants as the dreaded and hated ISIS fighters. There is little evidence that these militants are imbibed in extremist interpretations of Islam. From their statements it is clear that they no longer wish to continue in ghetto-like conditions that they have been subjected to for generations without any identity and future, and what they simply want is “equality before the law, freedom to live in peace, freedom to move about so that they can work, earn a living and feed their children, recognition that they are citizens and they belong in Burma, not in Bangladesh”. They have made it amply clear that their goals “are not creating an Islamic state in the predominant Buddhist country, nor independence from Burma”. Are not those aspirations reasonable and legitimate?

Calling the militants an organised force is also a clever ploy. It provides the rationale for the Burmese army to mete out excessive use of force. The fact is “these militants are armed with most primitive machetes and farm tools, equipped with some mobile phones and use of the most primitive type of explosives”. There has not been an iota of evidence furnished by quarters including the high-tech western intelligence agencies to support the claims that these militants are receiving AK-47s and Arab money. The mainstream media only cites “un-named intelligence sources”—whatever that means.

Thus for any discerning observer it is not the militants that have waged the war; it is a war that both the Burmese army and Suu Kyi’s government “are waging against the Rohingyas to further demonise and criminalise them while maintaining the ghettoised conditions on the ground for more than one million Rohingyas”. As the Buddhist Burmese scholar and activist Maung Zarni, a specialist on Rohingyas, reminds us “These Rohingya men, primitively armed, are not fighting to go to heaven as martyrs, they are fighting back because they and their communities are sitting ducks awaiting the next round of slaughter”.

It is naïve to view that laws of the land should always be respected as sacrosanct and violence in all forms should be shunned. When the State systematically abuses its authority, represses its own people and engages in excessive violence, the laws lose their sanctity and people are freed from such compulsion. In fact, the onus lies on the people to challenge the State and under such circumstances any form of resistance, including resorting to violence, is legitimate. Bangladesh’s own armed struggle is a fitting testimony.

The stark reality that members of Rohingya community face in northern Arakan today obligates all countries including Bangladesh to allow those fleeing persecution to enter their territories. All should respect and honour international customary law and the principle of non-refoulement and thus refrain from rejecting asylum seekers from their borders. The Bangladesh government should immediately rescind the offer of joint collaboration with the Burmese government. Such a move will only amount to Bangladesh being an abettor of the acts of a State that is engaged in ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and in all likelihood, of genocide. Surely, the people of Bangladesh, proud survivors of the 1971 genocide, champions of self-determination and freedom against oppression, do not deserve to be labelled as such.

C R Abrar teaches International Relations at the University of Dhaka. He acknowledges insights gained from the works of Dr. Maung Zarni.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

By C R Abrar
Jun 20 2016 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

The final week of May 2016 was a grisly one. More than 700 asylum seekers and migrants died as three boats attempting to carry them to Italy sunk in the Mediterranean, and the death toll for the year crossed 2000. A week ago, Unicef reported a doubling of the number of unaccompanied children arriving as asylum seekers this year. The report also highlighted that these children are subjected to sexual violence, forced prostitution and other forms of abuse.

UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, informs that, of the 157,574 arrivals in Europe in 2016, 90 percent were from the top 10 refugee producing countries of the world — fleeing war, violence and persecution in their countries of origin, and were in need of international protection. A breakdown of the total reveals almost 90 percent of the cases were from three countries: Syria (49 percent), Afghanistan (25 percent) and Iraq (14 percent). These figures debunk the myth that most are economic migrants, who have left their own countries by choice in search of economic opportunities.

The magnitude and nature of the global refugee situation has changed considerably over the last few decades. It has become increasingly ‘protracted, politicised and complex’. This has made the task of finding a durable solution further challenging.

Evidence is replete that states are not only reluctant to uphold ethical standards of refugee protection, but also that they are actively contributing to the erosion of the principle and practice of asylum. Refugees are increasingly been seen as subjects of charity. There is little acknowledgement that the principle of non-refoulement, the cornerstone of international refugee protection, is now a provision of customary international law, binding even on states that are not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Over time, many Western states, particularly those of Europe, have introduced measures to reduce the number of individuals seeking asylum in their territory through non-arrival policies, diversion policies, an increasingly restrictive application of the 1951 Convention and a range of deterrent policies, such as detention of asylum seekers and the denial of social assistance; on the other hand, some states, like the UK, have openly advocated for dismantling of the 1951 Refugee Convention and instituting of a new international refugee regime, premised on containing of refugees within their region of origin.

This two-facedness of the western states has placed significant burden on asylum countries of the South, especially of Africa and Asia. This, in turn, has led some of the Southern countries to close off their borders to prevent arrivals, push for early and unsustainable return of asylum seekers to the country of origin and, in a few instances, forcibly expel entire refugee populations.

There is little recognition that protracted refugee situations do not remain confined to the host states of the South and have major regional and international implications. A UNHCR commissioned survey on Somali refugees has indicated that the absence of durable solutions and effective international protection in the first country of asylum is a major motive for secondary migratory movements to Europe and elsewhere.

There is a propensity in most quarters to view the refugee problem as a humanitarian problem. However, protracted refugee situations require more than humanitarian engagement. They entail meaningful and sustained engagement of peace, security and development actors. A comprehensive and holistic approach is perhaps the only way forward.

Thus while there is an urgent need to work out creative solutions to the global refugee problems, the international community appears to be hanging on to the old approach, premised on the concept of national security. This has been evident in Europe’s pursuit of Operation Sophia in dealing with the current refugee inflow. The next part of this essay will explicate how ill-conceived the strategy was.

In October 2014, Italy abandoned its ‘search and rescue’ Mare Nostrum operation that prevented mass drowning of asylum seekers in the Mediterranean. This resulted in an increase in the number of deaths of migrants trying to seek asylum in the continent. The demand for re-launching of the operation was met with stiff opposition and, on April 23, 2015, the European Council adopted a British-drafted resolution vowing to “undertake systematic efforts to identify, capture and destroy (refugee) vessels”. This was a palpable shift from humanitarian commitments to a military solution. It is worthwhile to note that British fascist Nick Griffin made the proposal five years earlier.

The European border agency Frontex reported that since its adoption 14 vessels have been destroyed and 69 ‘suspected smugglers’ were apprehended. The strategy was modelled to impede the human smuggling syndicates and limit the opportunities for would be refugees to flee to Europe. There is a little evidence that the new strategy worked at all. In the period from September 2015 to January 2016, the marginal drop of 9 percent in the Mediterranean flow was supplemented by the opening up of the ‘Balkans route’ to Europe. In order to minimise ‘significant financial loss’, the human smugglers amended their business model and replaced expensive wooden or fibre-glass boats by cheap mass produced Chinese inflatable rubber dinghies that have less carrying capacity and are more limited by sea conditions. In addition, as the borders became more challenging to navigate, migrants turned to more sophisticated smugglers to facilitate their crossing.

All these led the UK House of Lords EU Committee to observe, “The Mission (Sophia) does not… in any meaningful way deter the flow of migrants, disrupt the smugglers’ networks, or impede the business of people smuggling on the Mediterranean route”. The House of Lords report quotes Amnesty International’s Steve Symonds that the EU’s reinforcement of external borders policing had brought about “the movement of ever larger number of people around different routes by different journeys, usually at greater danger and cost to them, and so of greater profit to smugglers”. The opening sentence of the report quoted Peter Roberts of the Royal United Services Institute, “migrants in the boat are symptoms, not causes, of the problem”.

The challenge, therefore, for the international community is to acknowledge that refugees constitute an overwhelming bulk of the flow and they are fleeing protracted conflict conditions that needs urgent political solution. Pursuing unworkable policies would only be acting like an ostrich.

Recently displaying a life jacket used by a Syrian girl who died while trying to reach the Greek island of Lesbos to a group of youngsters, Pope Francis explained, “Migrants are not a danger – they are in danger”. It’s time the policy makers of Western nations paid heed to the pontiff.

The writer teaches International Relations at the University of Dhaka. He writes and researches on rights and migration issues.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh