The Rohingya Crisis: Past, Present and Future
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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: Tula Toli 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 Myanmar 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 Sittwe, 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.