Transcript

The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

Professor Penny Green

Professor of Law and Globalisation, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London

Shafiur Rahman

Documentary Filmmaker, Testimonies of a Massacre:

Stephen Twigg

Chair of the International Development Select Committee

Chair: Dr Champa Patel

Head, Asia Programme, Chatham House

23 January 2018

The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the speaker(s) and participants, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Chatham House, its staff, associates or Council. Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political body. It does not take institutional positions on policy issues. This document is issued on the understanding that if any extract is used, the author(s)/speaker(s) and Chatham House should be credited, preferably with the date of the publication or details of the event. Where this document refers to or reports statements made by speakers at an event, every effort has been made to provide a fair representation of their views and opinions. The published text of speeches and presentations may differ from delivery. © The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2017.

10 St James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LE T +44 (0)20 7957 5700 F +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org Patron: Her Majesty The Queen Chairman: Stuart Popham QC Director: Dr Robin Niblett Charity Registration Number: 208223

2 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

Dr Champa Patel

[Music] So, that’s quite a difficult – you know, difficult footage to watch and the opportunity here to talk about some of the issues that we saw, both in the short excerpt from the documentary, but some of the current things that we know that are happening within Bangladesh at the moment as well. So, I’m joined by Shafiur Rahman, who’s the freelance Documentary Maker, who made the film that you just saw, Professor Green, Professor of Law and Globalisation at Queen Mary University, and Stephen Twigg, who’s the Chair of the International Development Select Committee.

So, if I could start with you, Shafiur? Why did you want to tell this story, because there’s certainly a narrative out there that – you know, the displacement that we’re seeing is in response to the armed attacks by Rohingya groups, and even though the military response is disproportionate, it’s presented that it’s a reaction to what happened. But this – your footage certainly tells a different story, so why was it important for you that this gets heard? Shafiur Rahman

I was there on September the 2nd, purely by chance, at the border. I was looking at other things actually, another story that I was following up, and then all these people were coming over, and the people with the most horrendous stories were from Tula Toli. So, this was not a – you know, I kept coming across people with this, kind of, consistent line that they were telling me that people were burned, that women were raped and knocked out, huts set on fire, and so on. It’s then that I started exploring what’s happening in Tula Toli and why was it significant, what were they doing? And then, as I continued my research, I realised that apart from the pre-planning that went into Tula Toli, there was a wider, much wider, grand plan set in motion well before the 25th where the army had been mobilised, and so on.

By the way, it’s worth mentioning that the Burmese still haven’t provided any proof for attacks on the 25th – on the 24th and it’s also worth mentioning that the checkposts – 30 or so checkposts, which were supposed to be attacked, had been attacked, the army had been mobilised in not just those 30 checkposts, but in other places as well. All overnight, that’s a little bit hard to, kind of, understand.

Dr Champa Patel

Yeah, and I think if we look at the current situation, what’s hugely worrying and concerning is, you know, you hear these testimonies, and we’re talking about repatriating refugees back to Myanmar, but nothing has changed fundamentally, within Myanmar. So, just – it would be useful to hear from the panellists your thoughts on, you know, what do you think about this repatriation deal that’s been agreed and what does it mean to return people to a situation where nothing has fundamentally changed, in terms of how they’re seen?

Shafiur Rahman

And that’s the other, kind of, pre-planning. If I were to make this movie now rather than October 25th, I think what I’d do is, concentrate on this pre-planning that’s going on, which is sending back the Rohingya, the repatriation between – the agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh. Razia, the little girl you saw, she has a cousin, a first cousin, three years older. Her mum was also raped. Her siblings were also killed. She also has wounds on her head. I spoke to her and the way she spoke to me, the way she related the – you know, how she misses her father, her father was killed, and how they used to tend the herd together, they had some cattle, it was quite clear that she’s going to take some time to get over it.

3 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

There was another child that I interviewed, an orphan, and her sister was telling me – his sister was telling me that he wakes up in the middle of the night. He cries out for his mother. He goes to various camps, to various refugee camps to try and find her. So, it’s not only the kids, but also, the parents who are traumatised and so, to think about repatriating these people – and remember, the conditions in the camp are such that, you know, I mean, these pressures that are on them, they’re not going to be alleviated in any sense, in fact, it’s going to be compounded. So, to send back these people without any of the safeguards – so, it’s really good that this morning apparently the UNHCR Head, or rather the UN Head, I think, has said that, “Hang on a minute, we must rethink this,” because the UN, in the past – I mean, Bangladesh has a terrible history on repatriation.

In 78 they starved their refugees. 12,000 people died, in order to force them to go back. In 91/92 there was forcible repatriation and you can’t even say the UN, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has a – you know, they would be good – they would provide good oversight, because in the past their history has shown that they’ve not been able to. So, it’s very important that we discuss this and – because the saga continues, really.

Dr Champa Patel

And Professor Green, your thoughts on the repatriation deal? Because it’s been paused essentially, for now, but is there – is it likely that over 800,000 people will be able to return? And, you know, if by any chance that would happen, what’s the impact on Bangladesh, if they are to stay, and what would be the impact on Myanmar?

Professor Penny Green

Well, I think in the first instance, the idea of a repatriation agreement is ludicrous. It’s, quite frankly, terrifying. Both Shafiur and I have been in the camps, we know many of the people that – in the film, and that we’ve discussed, the idea of them going back to conditions of genocide, because this was a genocide and I think that’s part of what I’d like to say something about. That the context of what Shafiur’s film addresses is much longer and this is a genocide that’s being undertaken over some 30 years. Genocide is a process. It’s problematic the way it’s very often constructed in common sense parlance and it’s somehow, a spectacularised incident of mass killing, that is not what genocide is.

Genocide is about the annihilation in whole or part of a particular group of people, and we can argue about how those groups are defined, but that’s what genocide is. And this is a genocide, which is based on processes of stigmatisation, physical violence, isolating the targeted group, then systematically weakening them. So, when we talk about – when we hear this talk about a deal that’s been conjured up by the Bangladesh Government and by the Myanmar genocidal state, without any input whatsoever from the Rohingya community, we know that it is sending lambs to the slaughter, effectively. So, I am totally opposed to this repatriation agreement.

Everybody we interviewed in the camps wanted to return to Myanmar, that’s their home. They are Burmese, Myanmar, Rohingya, that’s their identity. An identity that the Burmese State will not allow them to assume. You can’t use the term ‘Rohingya’ inside Myanmar. Aung San Suu Kyi specifically instructed the international community inside Myanmar that they were not to use the term ‘Rohingya’. So, I think that repatriation is an appalling prospect at this moment, though ultimately, the Rohingya want to return. But they do not want to return until they can be guaranteed a safe space, until they can be guaranteed homes and not concentration camps, because of course, there are 140,000 Rohingya already in concentration camps in and around the capital , in Myanmar, and they are dying slowly. And so,

4 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

the idea that they would be returned to, what? 300 – over 350,000 villages completely destroyed, their mosques gone, their cultural monuments gone, families fractured, and communities destroyed. The idea of them returning to what, we have to ask? And this is a regime that has shown absolutely no concern. There is no sense in which the Rohingya are part of the Myanmar State’s universe of obligation.

Dr Champa Patel

Yes, Stephen, and you’ve been taking, with the International Development Committee, evidence from a range of experts on what the impact of this crisis is on both Bangladesh and Myanmar. But what’s your sense of the impact on Bangladesh, if long-term solutions cannot be found? Because, you know, the scale of the crisis – you know, we cannot expect Bangladesh to absorb necessarily, this population in the long- term.

Stephen Twigg

Thanks, Champa and thanks to Chatham House for organising the event today, in particular thanks to you, your evidence was very important in our enquiry, and that was the first time I’ve seen the film and it’s obviously, an incredibly powerful way of making the case about the sheer scale of this crisis. And firstly, if I can say, I totally agree with the other two panellists on repatriation, and when we published our report last week, we chose to make repatriation the number one issue that we would highlight from the report, really for the reasons that have been said, so I won’t repeat them. But clearly, if the Rohingya community is to largely remain in Bangladesh for a significant period of time, that is a huge challenge for Bangladesh, for the Bangladeshi Government and for the people of Bangladesh, and it’s important that the world community, including ourselves, doesn’t move onto another crisis in the way that so often happens. There needs to be a long-term sustainable commitment to support the Rohingya, and one of the suggestions that was put to us in evidence and we highlight it in the Committee’s report, is the idea of some, kind of, special development zone in Bangladesh that could enable jobs and other economic opportunities, both for the refugees, but also for the host Bangladeshi community, to try to avoid some of the issues of resentment that can arise in these situations. And I know, no refugee situation is the same as another, but there are some lessons I think could be learnt from Jordan where such a zone is being developed with UK support, to support the Syrian and other refugees in Jordan and the local Jordanian population.

Dr Champa Patel

And I just wanted to ask one more question before we throw it out to the audience, you know, the media narrative, the narrative by Politicians is that this is a refugee crisis, which it undoubtedly is. But at its heart, it’s an issue of statelessness and until the issue of statelessness is addressed, there are no long-term solutions. So, from your perspective, how do you see the issue of citizenship being critical or crucial to finding long-term solutions here?

Professor Penny Green

If I could start? I mean, I think there’s a slight problem with that construction because I don’t think statelessness is at the heart of this. I think state crime is at the heart. It’s a genocidal programme and we have to understand that. There are a group of Muslims inside who are citizens, the Kaman, and they have been treated in a very, very similar way to the Rohingya. So, I think we have to be careful. Muslims in Myitkyina, in , have also been under attack. They have citizenship. So, I think that statelessness is part of this story of genocide and a hugely important part of it, but it is not at all the whole

5 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

story and I don’t necessarily think it’s the crux. I think that inside Myanmar Burma, there’s a tremendously racist current, an Islamophobic current, which has been used by the state very cleverly, quite crudely, but nonetheless somewhat cleverly, to assuage other anxieties and grievances that – particularly the Rakhine, in northern Rakhine, in Rakhine State, have against the state. Because it’s a tremendously poor state, it’s the second poorest, possibly the poorest, in the country and the Rakhine, who – as Shafiur shows very clearly, were also perpetrators of the horrendous violence that you witnessed. They also, are under threat as an ethnic group, and we’re seeing right now, that the Myanmar state has turned its attentions to them. Ten Rakhine protestors were killed in last week, and now it’s extremely interesting and we’ve seen – the Rohingya have gone.

The scapegoated enemy are no longer. This is a genocide that’s finished. The Rohingya are gone. There are barely 150-200,000 Rohingya left, we estimate, inside the whole of Rakhine State and a 140,000 of them are in concentration camps, so there’s virtually no 0ne left. Who do the Rakhine blame now for their grievances?

Dr Champa Patel

And just to – before we open it out, what do you think are the – because the countries in the region that are most affected, so Bangladesh is one, but there are sizeable numbers of Rohingya also in India; China has a role to play here. So, when we talk about the international community, often we’re talking about the countries of, you know, the northern hemisphere, but what is the role, do you think Shafiur, for example, the – what could be done, within the region, to find long-term solutions, because it’s countries within the region that are hosting the refugee population?

Shafiur Rahman

Yeah, it’s interesting because there are some countries, which are not immediately bordering Myanmar or Bangladesh, like Indonesia, who want to take on a more, kind of, pronounced role. They see this as an opportunity for them to exert their leadership position in the Islamic world, and so on. But we – I mean, that’s why they pour in aid, they say the right things, but crucially, when it comes to these – to pressuring Myanmar, to pressuring Bangladesh on issues like repatriation, there seems to be a stumbling block. Because, I think, they – political pressures are such, the due political pressures are such, which is of course, China’s interest in the country, which is why of course, America is also interested, and remember Professor Obama visited the country, so it takes some, you know, some, kind of, you know, huge interest for a President – for a US President to visit a country. So, I think there are tremendous due political interests and within that I think, it’s just countries have not been able to push through what would be something acceptable for the Rohingya.

Dr Champa Patel

And Stephen, this is probably quite unfair to ask you, but certainly, the international…

Stephen Twigg

Hmmm, unfair.

Dr Champa Patel

…response does seem fragmented. You know, there doesn’t seem to be a coherent approach, even on the issue of sanctions, people take very different positions. So, what is – what do you think is needed or could

6 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

be done to pull people together in a way that’s lacking at the moment, both within the region and internationally?

Stephen Twigg

I think fragmented is a kind adjective to use about the international community’s response and, you know, as – looking at it from the point of view of the Select Committee that I Chair, we look at the work that DFID does in responding to humanitarian crises and as is often the case, there is a – something to praise there, in terms of the response of DFID to the humanitarian crisis. But as soon as we delve into the history and the politics, then we see a much more deep-seated and long-term failure, even in British policy, and we highlight a number of issues, some of which have been referred to already, some of the early warning signs that were coming years ago about the risk that something like this could happen. The role of the UK in funding the census where the Rohingya identity was excluded from the census, so I guess my answer to your question, I don’t know if it’s a copout, is to say we’ve got to get our own house in order first, but then, there is clearly a huge challenge in engaging other powers, whether in the region or in other parts of the world, to address this in the way that it should be addressed, which is in terms of pretty fundamental and basic human rights for the and indeed, for other minorities within Burma.

Dr Champa Patel

Okay, so we’ll open it out for questions. If I could ask, because there may be many questions, if we could keep the questions short and to one question each? Oh, I think there’s somebody with a microphone.

Member

I think the situations in Myanmar, accepted by all Amnesty International and other human rights organisation, even the UNHCR, the daily genocide, so if there is a genocide, why international community is not taking actions against the Bangladesh Government? The first question is, you are talking about the rehabilitation and repatriation and then, also, giving the responsibility through the Bangladesh Government, we have seen in the past what happened to the Afghan refugees in Pakistan, 300,000, and what happened to them. So, instead of encouraging the country to commit genocide, why don’t we punish those countries, which are committing the genocide? Why, in the international actions, why they give so much international interest in their own self-interest and their – because the member of the United Nations Security Council, they are there, and they have the power shall be military Government, they are butchering the people and they know that if this issue will come to them, like in the Security Council, one of their Parliament members that will [inaudible – 18:26] cannot taken any action. So, I think the – at this moment, the international community should make – instead of throwing them out of the country, keep them that they have a place in Burma, which is known as Rakhine, they let all the Muslims live in Rakhine Northern State, as they have done in Timor, East Timor, but as they have done in the Balkanese states, so they can do it, but if they want. The problem is, there is no willpower of the international community who are sitting in the utilitarianism Security Council, to solve the problem.

Dr Champa Patel

Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions we could take, at this stage, so if we take a few?

Professor Penny Green

I think it should be one-by-one.

7 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

Dr Champa Patel

Oh, okay. Sorry, one-by-one.

Professor Penny Green

If – I’ll come back to that point because actually, those organisations aren’t calling it genocide at this point. In fact, we are rather alone in defining it. I mean, Shafiur defines it as a genocide, the International State Crime Initiative, of which I’m the Director, and the research that Thomas MacManus and Alicia de la Cour Venning and I did, demonstrated very clearly to us, in 2014/15, that this was indeed, a genocide.

The United Nations have not called it a genocide. In fact, they call it textbook ethnic cleansing, which actually, isn’t a crime, under international law, and it’s a euphemism. It’s a euphemism for genocide, but it’s an important euphemism for the powers that be because it removes their obligation to act. If they call it a genocide and if states call it a genocide, if a court of law rules it’s a genocide, then states, certainly key states, are obliged to act. They’re obliged to intervene, to prevent and to punish. Now, the question of prevention is finished.

Stephen Twigg

Yeah.

Professor Penny Green

There is no – you know, we wrote to the British Government, in 2015, with – on – with our findings, and the response that we got was, “Well, it’s not a genocide until a court of law pronounces it a genocide.” That’s very comfortable for the British Government. Thank you very much, we don’t have do anything. So, that’s at the heart and it’s not a semantic debate. It is not a semantic debate. It’s a debate, which has real political consequences and that unfortunately, is one of them.

Dr Champa Patel

I mean, Stephen, did you want to come in on…

Stephen Twigg

Yes, please.

Dr Champa Patel

…you referred to the warning signs before…

Stephen Twigg

Absolutely.

Dr Champa Patel

…that were missed.

8 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

Stephen Twigg

Absolutely, you know, the warning signs were there. I Chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities in the 14/15 period and I remember us raising these issues with the Government back then. Human Rights Watch, I know raised these questions at least three to four years ago. The Washington Holocaust Museum’s early warning work highlighted the risk of genocide in 2015, so three years ago. This is not something that has come, in a sense, unexpectedly or from nowhere.

I should say that in our enquiry, we didn’t focus on this issue, partly because our colleagues on the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee did. They reached the view that the terminology was ‘crime against humanity’, and certainly when we took oral evidence from Human Rights Watch, that was the term that David Mepham, from Human Rights Watch, used as well. Personally, I have no difficulty with the very strong argument that’s been made that genocide is correct and of course, we’ve been here before, haven’t we? You know, echoes of so many situations, but you think of Rwanda and Madeleine Albright’s distinction between genocide and acts of genocide, and the reluctance is clearly, in large part, for the reasons we’ve already heard that genocide places an obligation on the powers of the world to do something about it. And I think – coming back to the point, I think we need – I think there’s not an either/or between what we do to support those that are now in Bangladesh and trying to create the conditions on the ground for them to be able to return, but I guess, without rehearsing the previous answers, it’s going to be a long time before there can be any sense of safety for Rohingya refugees returning to Burma.

Dr Champa Patel

Could we take the – sorry, can we make sure we have…?

Member

The United Nations’ force cannot be used to keep the peace in that, kind of…

Stephen Twigg

Peacekeepers.

Dr Champa Patel

Yes.

Stephen Twigg

Yes, I think there’s a good argument for that. I think there’s a good argument for that.

Dr Champa Patel

We have a question over here. If you could say your name and identify yourself.

9 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

Amitav Banerji

Thanks very much. My name is Amitav Banerji. I work for the Global Leadership Foundation and I’m a member of Chatham House. I wanted to ask two questions. One is the charge by the Myanmar Government and by the Myanmar military in particular, that there were radicalised elements who actually attacked military posts and triggered a major backlash. I mean, those heartrending images we saw were absolutely dreadful, and I was wondering if Mr Shafiur Rahman also was able to ask people about this allegation that was levied that this was a, sort of, retribution killing that went berserk?

The other is the Kofi Annan Commission’s recommendations. The Government has, on the face of it, established now a Committee to try and implement some of them, do those recommendations carry in them the kernel of something that could eventually help with the resolution of the problem? Thank you.

Dr Champa Patel

Shafiur?

Shafiur Rahman

Yeah, I mean, regarding the attacks by the so-called militants, as I said earlier, you know, they haven’t provided evidence yet. They haven’t, you know – to the international community, but then, they’re very careful about presenting anything to the international community. In fact, both the Dec – October 2016, as well as the August 24th attacks, they’ve dismissed them. October 2015 – 2016, I think they said, there was bicycle stolen, or something to that effect that, you know – and they also minimised the most recent thing, the most recent – you know, what they said that they’d killed about ten people, or something like that. So, I think they like to minimise these things, and also, it’s a very easy handle to blame Islamic militants, who are bent on, you know, changing their way of life, who are bent on coming in and changing the population structure and so on. So, I think – we also asked [Zote] who was, at that time, the State Councillor’s right-hand man, and her DG, I don’t know what that – his exact designation is – was, he’s moved now, and originally, it started off by – the Burmese had claimed there were two attacks near Tula Toli originally, but when we asked him, he produced nine attacks near Tula Toli. So, things change and it’s not really believable.

Dr Champa Patel

But in terms of the Kofi Annan recommendations, the Myanmar Government did accept the report and the recommendations, so as the question goes, you know, Stephen or Professor Green, do you think there is something in those recommendations that could be a starting point for a long-term solution?

Stephen Twigg

I don’t – I think it could be part of the long-term solution, but I don’t think it can be the starting point, for the reasons we’ve already rehearsed. I think we’ve moved beyond that, you know, we refer in the report to the UK Government’s 5 Point Plan, and clearly, each item within it has great merit and we say that, but the starting point needs to be a position where there is a serious potential for safety for return and we’re nowhere near that point. So yes, in the longer-term the sorts of recommendations Annan came up with, I would say yes, would be part of a settlement, but we’ve got a long way to go before we’re even at that stage.

10 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

Professor Penny Green

I mean, they were effectively recommendations, you know, advocating for world peace. I mean, in that context, and you have to understand them in the context of the Myanmar State’s crimes, and I think that they have used the Salvation Rohingya Army’s so-called alleged attacks because there is no evidence and it’s not beyond the wit of the Myanmar State to engage in false flag terrorist operations. And it’s very interesting that we’ve heard almost nothing of them in-between, you know, these two apparent attacks. But they used it, it was a convenient fiction for the Myanmar State to claim that this was the pretext for what they engaged in, in terms of their military clearances, these genocidal clearances. But it all – those clearances only make – they really make sense if you think about the way genocide proceeds. It starts off with practices of dehumanisation and stigmatisation. That feeds into a testing of the population’s appetite for violence against the targeted group.

If there are no repercussions, as there weren’t in 2012 when Rohingya villages in Sittwe were attacked and Rohingya communities in Sittwe were attacked, it was a green light to continue. That violence led to the isolation, the physical and social isolation of the Rohingya. They were driven from their burning areas, into what is now this detention camp complex, where they remain and have remained for five years in these horrible, horrible camps. And when people are in camps, when they’re isolated – and there’s a ghetto in Sittwe, when people are isolated like this, physically, geographically and socially, it’s very easy to weaken them.

You weaken them by not giving them access to livelihood. You weaken them by making them reliant on food aid. You weaken them by removing their healthcare opportunities. Médecins Sans Frontiéres were expelled by the Myanmar State, the only emergency provider of healthcare to the Rohingya, no longer there, and, you know, you go into those camps and the air of depression is overwhelming. It’s pervasive. They are the most depress – more depressing actually, than the Bangladesh camps, as it happens, but that’s how genocide progresses. So, people flee, in various ways, they were fleeing long before this latest exodus. They were fleeing in very dangerous boats, trying to get anywhere that would take them after 2012 and the Sittwe attacks.

So, we need to understand that this is a process and the events, the – and Shafiur’s film makes this very clear and that’s what we found in our research, that there was a militarisation of northern Rakhine State, leading up to the clearances. There was a tremendous push for the acceptance of these national verification cards, which effectively – this is a process by which the Rohingya, if they sign, are declaring themselves to be identiless – identity-less. It means that they are not going to be Rohingya. All these things were happening and so, this is a way of understanding what happened. Very clearly, it’s a genocide.

Dr Champa Patel

I think worth pointing out that, you know, where analysis has been done of the situation within Myanmar, so what does the average Burmese person think of what’s going on, there’s overwhelming support for what the state is doing. So, this is – you know, within the country itself, there’s fundamentally, a different perception, understanding and analysis of what the international community is thinking or seeing or feeling. There’s a question at the back? If you could say who you are.

11 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

Amal de Chickera

Yes, I’m Amal de Chickera of the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion. My question to all or any of the panellists is about Bangladesh, actually. The Bangladesh State response to the crisis has been a bit muddled and confused. They have, I think, tried to benefit from it, in terms of Bangladesh’s positioning in the international community. There’s been a lot of language of protection and, on the flipside, they’ve been very quick to sign this repatriation agreement, which completely undermines its position. And regardless of Bangladesh’s actual treatment of the Rohingya which, I mean, appalling as it has been historically, I struggle to try and understand or tease out what Bangladesh’s position is and what it’s trying to achieve out of this situation, which potentially actually is – I mean, to be very cynical, a good opportunity for Bangladesh to gain some Brownie points on the international stage.

Dr Champa Patel

And I think also, just to add to that, the complex politics within Bangladesh with an election looming, the different parties that exist there.

Shafiur Rahman

I think you’re absolutely right, it’s been a very muddled, a very contradictory response. I think you have to give them, and the Rohingya themselves flag up the fact that we are grateful to Bangladesh for accepting us, for letting us in, though that of course, ignores the pushback that also happened at the beginning. But look, I mean, the Government don’t even call them refugees, yeah? They – so, that’s an important thing, they don’t call them refugees because that would mean giving them refugee rights, and that would mean they could go all over the country. That would mean that they wouldn’t have to be, you know, herded into these camps. They could educate themselves. They could do jobs. None of those things are available to the Rohingya, so that’s one thing. They call them [mother tongue], which means infiltrators, so the language, even the language, even the discourse is a very, very problematic one.

I think you’re absolutely right, I mean, they try to milk the situation. If you go to Cox’s Bazar, you’ll see all of these posters of Hasina, the Prime Minister, and you’ll see Mother of Humanity, and so on, and yet, at the same time, we have this repatriation deal, and so on. A lot of the calculations are, of course, the coming elections, yeah? Next year, the coming elections. The locals are ramped up by the press. The press are – the local press are rabidly anti-Rohingya. They’re the ones who are with their cameras and with their Journalists, you know, filming all these people coming in and they’re saying then – and then they ask the BGB, “What are you doing about this? All these people coming in? That, you know, all this deforestation is happening, etc., and Rohingya carrying Yaba drugs.” So, you know, this is ramped up by the local press, to a considerable extent, and these feed into the political calculations that our [inaudible – 33:34] has to make for the forthcoming elections.

Dr Champa Patel

Is there anything briefly that you guys wanted to add? No? So, we’re coming – ooh, okay. If we can make them very quick questions, so we can make sure we finish on time. I’ll take both at the same time, so if you could say your name and…

Member

Hi, and it’s just a very quick question. I wanted to find out whether you guys thought there had been any evidence of Islamic State using this event to try and sort of – using the fact that they’re attacking Muslims

12 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

to try and get a foothold in the region and if there had been any evidence and if so, if it had been successful or not?

Dr Champa Patel

Hmmm hmm, and your question?

Member

Hi.

Dr Champa Patel

Sorry, and your name?

Armida van Rij

Armida van Rij, The Policy Institute, King’s College, London and I lived in Myanmar in 2014/2015. You touched on this just now about the, sort of, the gap really, between the discourse within the country, within the population and how they’re aligning with Aung San Suu Kyi and [inaudible – 34:22], how other Muslim minorities in the country have also actually expressed some anti-Rohingya feeling at the international community. So, how do you go about, as the international community, bridging that gap being discourse and narratives, which seems to me like a first step?

Dr Champa Patel

Sure, so if we have the, you know, the potential influence or reach of Isis within Bangladesh Myanmar and cultural – how to address long-term cultural institutionalised discrimination? Shafiur Rahman

I’ll just briefly address the ISIS thing. I mean, ISIS themselves, in their magazine Dabiq, have highlighted this thing, this struggle for the Rohingya. They want to be able to move in there. They want to be able to, kind of, say, “Yes, we’re part of this struggle for the freedom of Muslims and so on,” but, you know, the International Crisis Group and others they have all said that there’s no connection between ARSA and these other militants, they – ARSA themselves have said, “We’ve nothing to do with the Jihad and Jihadis, etc.” So, that’s briefly that, yeah.

Dr Champa Patel

And then – oh, go ahead.

Professor Penny Green

No, I’m happy to come back on this point, in the sense that we – in 2012, we conducted research looking at resistance to state violence and we were in Myanmar and we interviewed many, many human rights organisations that were just beginning to, sort of, flourish, and people had just been released from prison 2010/11, and what struck us, at that time was – well, it wasn’t an ambivalence towards the Rohingya. If you raised the question – that wasn’t our primary source of interest, but it was constructed by [inaudible

13 The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future

– 35:59] and the big, sort of, human rights activists as an immigration issue and they weren’t prepared to extend their human rights concerns to the Rohingya at that time.

This is one of the reasons why I think Aung San Suu Kyi is so responsible, because people talk about the military conducting these campaigns, but when she was released from prison, when she was campaigning for the 2015 elections, had she stood up, had she said, “The Rohingya are people, they are part of our country and we cannot tolerate human rights abuses against them, we cannot tolerate hate crime against them,” had she done that, those activists would have gone with her. I mean, they would have done anything for her at that moment, at that moment. They’re completely disillusioned now, but at that – well, many of them, but at that moment they would have. So, I think that was a tremendously – a lost opportunity – that was never an opportunity because she would never have done it, for the reasons of that – you know, her nature and her political ambitions.

I think it’s really critical though, I think somehow, we have to be appealing to civil society inside Myanmar and that is going to require a lot of work. But there is, I think, an appetite amongst some sectors, especially amongst the youth, but that’s a very big job, but I think it’s absolutely the right one.

Dr Champa Patel

Stephen, any closing thoughts?

Stephen Twigg

Just very briefly and highlighting two of our findings in the inquiry report that we published. So, on the issue of Islamic State we certainly highlighted the risk that a crisis like this could lead to, greater so-called radicalisation, which could take Rohingya in any number of directions and that is clearly, a massive, massive concern that that risk is there, that radicalisation – this could be exploited by extremist organisations. And on the question of civil society, I very much agree with what you just said about that, and one of the points we make in the report in criticism of British policy and other Governments’ policy, is that after the releases on Aung San Suu Kyi, too much emphasis was placed on the positive democratic transition and not enough on minority rights, including the rights of the Rohingya. And clearly, it’s going to be a lot harder to have that engagement with civil society now, than it might have been five years ago, but I absolutely agree that that’s something we should try to do.

Dr Champa Patel

Well, thank you everyone for joining us this lunchtime and I’d like to – if you’d join me in thanking our speakers [applause]. Of course, this is an issue on which much more can be said, and our speakers will be here for some time if you want to now speak to them separately, but formally, the session has now closed.

I say for some time. I don’t know how much time.