Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 20 - Evidence - September 27, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 27, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:30 a.m. to study the issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada’s international and national human rights obligations (topic: the human rights situation of the Rohingya).
Senator Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, senators. We have a busy but important special hearing today on a serious situation that is taking place in another part of the world, but it really is our issue as well and very important to Canada.
Before I welcome our official guests, I see we have the ambassador for Bangladesh in the audience, and he will be with us after this testimony.
[Translation]
Before we begin, I would like all of the senators to introduce themselves.
[English]
I did say last week that I’m sure everybody had a productive summer.
I would like the senators to introduce themselves before we discuss the human rights situation of the Rohingya, starting with my deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Ngo: Thanh Hai Ngo, Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator for Manitoba.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I’m Senator Munson from Ontario, although my heart is in New Brunswick, of course.
For our first panel this morning discussing the human rights situation of the Rohingya, we have Anwar Arkani, President, Rohingya Association of Canada; and Ahmed Ramadan, Outreach Coordinator, Justice for All – Burmese Task Force
On our second panel we will have the High Commissioner for Bangladesh and later on we’ll have human rights groups, Alex Neve and others from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Kevin Malseed.
Let’s start with Mr. Arkani. I think you have an opening statement, but I would ask you keep it to a certain period of time because we have so many questions, although I know you have so much to tell us. A sincere welcome to our committee.
Anwar Arkani, President, Rohingya Association of Canada: Honourable chair, all the senators, ladies and gentlemen, I am thankful to Canada for giving me refuge, citizenship, and a voice as well as the invitation to speak before you today. All three of these valuable assets were denied to me for most of my life as I ran from country to country to country in search of those assets, so thank you.
I am from a village in Buthidaung Township, Arakan State of Burma. In 1978, when I was 10 years old, my mother took me and the rest of the family to Bangladesh, escaping the Burmese military attacks. These attacks were called Operation King Dragon by the military. The operation began on February 6, 1978. It resulted in forcing about 208,000 Rohingyas to Bangladesh. Thousands of Rohingyas were arrested, tortured and murdered. My father was also arrested. We were not allowed to see him. He was never charged with any crime. There was no trial. He was simply murdered in prison. I wish I had been old enough to arrange a proper burial for him.
Three years later, I was forced again to flee to Bangladesh after the Burmese government took away citizenship rights of Rohingyas in 1982. Since I was no longer a citizen, I was not admitted to high school. This policy caused a whole generation of Rohingyas to be raised as illiterate.
The story of my family’s suffering, however, did not begin there. Both of my parents, as children, ran place to place to find safety from Burmese as early as 1940s, when almost half of all the Rohingyas were slaughtered. The mention of the 1940s is crucial. Crucial Burmese discourse says the military is still fighting World War II. Just a few days ago, September 16, to be exact, the commander-in-chief of the Burmese army, General Min Aung Hlaing, described the ongoing operation against the Rohingya as “unfinished business” dating back to World War II. Thus unfinished business has now turned into a nightmare of a final solution for Rohingyas. Rohingya villages are being burned and torched as we speak.
Although Aung San Suu Kyi has stated that military operations ceased on September 5, the genocidal attacks are still going on. Burma task forces documented fires as early as yesterday. On September 25 large fires were visible just across the Myanmar border from the refugee camps from inside Bangladesh, where there were reports of arson from Ward 5 of Maungdaw Township. On September 24, we had five such reports of attacks. I called my niece and nephews who were still alive last night, and they told me that two additional villages in another township were torched when I was on the phone with them.
In the current attack, which began on August 25, about 1 million Rohingya have had their lives shattered. Half a million have fled to Bangladesh and have created for themselves huts with bamboo and plastic sheets and are living in the midst of very inhumane conditions, mostly hungry and at great risk. One hundred and twenty thousand were already in IDP — internationally displaced people — camps in Burma from the 2012 operation. They were fed through the United Nations, but following the ban on UNFPA, there was no system of providing sustenance. They were not allowed to leave their camps. The New York Times called this situation the concentration camps of the 21st century.
In Bangladesh itself, there are about 1 million Rohingyas. Aid agencies have established that there are approximately 800,000 refugees in the surrounding regions. This is a complete devastation of the Rohingya community. All of this is part of a long-standing and long-stated policy of genocide, which was reasserted by Thein Sein, the former President of Burma and a military general in Myanmar.
On July 12, 2012, he asked the then head of UNHCR, Mr. António Guterres, who is now the Secretary-General of the UN, to take all the Rohingya out of the country, but it was not granted. Consequently, the government began systematically implementing that policy on their own using the military.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many other organizations have verified accounts of attacks against the Rohingya. In Rwanda, it was said Tutsis were killing themselves since they didn’t want to live with the Hutus. In Burma, they are saying the Rohingyas are burning their own houses. Each time the Burmese military has launched their attacks on the Rohingya community, they always accuse the victims’ community of initiating the attacks and being responsible for what is happening to them.
The same was done this time around when a convenient Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army attack is being used as a cause of this military operation. Nothing can be further from the truth. The evidence of increasing military build-up has been reported as early as August 3. Many leaders actually had warned Burma against these operations to attack. The chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee, Congressman Ed Royce, human rights organizations and the Burma Task Force publicly warned against the military build up before the attack on August 25. As a matter of fact, the forthcoming military attacks by the Burmese were so well-known and reported that even Bangladesh announced it is sending border enforcement to stall the potential influx of refugees.
In the last half century, there have been many armed groups fighting for their rights in Burma, including Christian and Buddhist ethnic groups. Rohingyas are the only people who have been peacefully asking for restoration of their citizenship. We’re not asking for a country or a separate state. We’re only asking for citizenship and equal rights.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Rohingyas are indigenous people of Arakan State, living in their ancestral land. Telling us that we are foreigners is utterly nonsense. We are not Bengali and we have never been Bengali. Until we were forced to flee, we had no connection to Bangladesh. Although we are thankful to Bangladesh, none of my family members, my parents or my grandparents were born in Bangladesh. As a matter of fact, most Bangladeshis cannot understand my language, and we don’t understand them.
I request this panel to declare that Burma is committing crimes of genocide against the Rohingya people. I request that Canada urgently airlift shipments of tents, medicine and other supplies to Bangladesh. These things are urgently needed.
Rohingyas don’t want to live a life of unrecognized refugees anywhere. We are not allowed to become citizens, study or have a regular job. We would like to live as citizens of Burma. For that reason, I support the Bangladeshi Prime Minister’s call to create a safe zone in Burma. However, it must include UN peacekeepers, with a clear mandate to defend Rohingyas against the Burmese army.
We call on Canada to initiate this conversation internationally with Germany and France, take the lead against the horrific violation of human rights and earn a place on the right side of history.
Before I conclude, I would like to add one more point: Where I was born and raised, the entire area has been cordoned by the army, but by regular, local Buddhists armed by the government, who are watching these people move. They cannot go out of the village to buy anything or find anything to eat. As we speak, the people are dying of hunger and sickness. There is nothing — no green leaves or vegetables left around the house. They have been eating banana plants and all of the leaves around the house. Those are the conditions right now.
I would like the panel to consider doing something urgent to save these people who are still alive but do not have an escape route to go anywhere out of Arakan State. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your compelling testimony, sir.
Ahmed, do you have a few words as well?
Ahmed Ramadan, Outreach Co-ordinator, Justice for All - Burmese Task Force: Dear honourable senators, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify before you today regarding the persecution faced by the Rohingya of Burma. Rohingya are indigenous people of Burma, living in their ancestral lands. All they ask is to have their citizenship restored, which was taken away from them in 1982 by the military regime.
I represent Burma Task Force. It is a coalition of 19 organizations. Since our inception in 2012, Burma Task Force has worked to raise awareness and advocate for an end to the violence against the Rohingya.
I want to first commend the Canadian government for being among the foremost governments speaking out against the persecution of the Rohingya. In every meeting I have had with a government official or member of Parliament, they have always shown a genuine concern for the Rohingya and an interest in taking action to end their persecution. It is an issue that defines partisanship.
On September 18,Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wrote to Myanmar State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, condemning her “silence in the face of brutal oppression of Myanmar’s Rohingya people.” At a rally organized by Burma Task Force on September 16, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, told demonstrators that persecution of the Rohingya “looks a lot like ethnic cleansing.”
My goal in this testimony is to present analysis and recommendations based on the work gathered by our team both on the ground with the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and here at home.
First, while we appreciate the well-intended use of the term “ethnic cleansing” by Canadian officials, it must be noted that it is a euphemism for genocide. The term holds no legal status in international law. It is ironic that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights calls it a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing,” but he would be hard pressed to find any legal textbook with the term as a crime.
The first politician to use this was actually Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, to bleach the atrocities of genocide against Bosnians. Dr. Maung Zarni, a Buddhist scholar and prominent dissident activist of Burma’s democracy movement, and Dr. Alice Cowley authoritatively argue in the University of Washington Pacific Rim Law Journal that the Rohingya have been subject to a process of slow-burning genocide over the past 35 years.
In 2016, over an eight-month period, the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School examined testimonies provided by Fortify Rights, UN documents and Myanmar government documents and concluded there was strong evidence of genocide.
At a conference organized by Burma Task Force in 2015 at the Nobel Peace Centre in Oslo, Norway, seven Nobel Peace Prize laureates were among the first to characterize the persecution of the Rohingya as a textbook case of genocide.
In recent weeks, the foreign minister of Bangladesh, A.H. Mahmood Ali, and the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, have described the violence faced by Rohingya as genocide. The Rome-based Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal hearing on the case of the Rohingya this past Friday issued a verdict finding Myanmar guilty of genocide against the Rohingya.
The Burmese military launches regular, periodic genocidal campaigns against the Rohingyas, one of which is ongoing right now. The Burma Task Force office receives reporting of burning of Rohingya villages every day, including yesterday. “Before and after” satellite images published by Human Rights Watch have shown complete razing of villages in Rakhine state. Although the Burmese government states that 400 Rohingyas have been killed in the whole operation, we believe that number is much higher — probably in the tens of thousands of injured, imprisoned or killed. One basis of this is the UN report saying that 80 per cent of the 430,000 refugees are women and children, and over half of those are children alone.
The Chair of Burma Task Force, Imam Malik Mujahid, concluded a trip to Bangladesh on September 24, where he interviewed several survivors of the Tula Toli massacre. Based on his interviews, including with the former mayor and imam of the village, there were at least, as a conservative number, 750 Rohingyas killed in just that village alone. That’s a conservative number. Each time we ask any group of Rohingyas in the refugee camps to raise their hand if they have seen anyone killed, more than 50 per cent have always raised their hand.
There are several policies Canada can implement immediately to affect Myanmar’s attitude and behaviour. First, we call upon Canada to call what is happening to the Rohingya what it is: genocide. If this committee needs genocide scholars to testify or Nobel Peace Prize laureates to write to you, we can help arrange for that. I request you recommend to the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada to second the call of the French President and call it what it is: a genocide.
Second, Canada has been among the most active nations to promote the international responsibility to uphold the R2P principle. We urge Canada to implement R2P into its policy-making process in regard to Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohingya. One such opportunity presents itself in the call by the Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has called for the safe zone of Rohingya inside Myanmar, protected by a UN peacekeeping force. We urge Canada to hold conversations with France and Germany to develop a joint proposal for the protection of the Rohingyas.
Third, there is an urgent and critical need for humanitarian assistance for the half million Rohingya refugees. Almost 95 per cent of all recent refugees are using just bamboo sticks and plastic sheets, which are extremely unhygenic and have created a pool of disease and very harsh conditions of survival. Most need proper access to food or medicine. Although Bangladeshi individuals are rushing to help and the government is trying to organize, the situation is dire. We request that Canada airlift tents, medicine and food on an urgent basis.
We also urge Canada to increase its assistance. We advise the Canadian government to provide at least a fleet of transport helicopters that can take the urgent supplies from airport to remote areas, since only one small road services a critical artery for the area, creating a logistical nightmare to reach the refugee camps, which requires hours of walking.
Lastly, there is a huge need to register newly arrived refugees. Bangladesh has only allowed 30,000-plus Rohingyas to be registered as refugees. Canada should urge Bangladesh to register all the Rohingya refugees and, at the least, create a system by which Rohingya can document their losses in life and property for the purpose of future investigation and restitution.
Honourable ladies and gentlemen, I see a great new opportunity for Canada to emerge as a world leader. While our neighbour to the south has been busy on Twitter wars and Britain is possessed by Brexit, this is a golden opportunity for Canada to take a lead. It is our chance to show the world Canada means business. Never again means never again. A genocide is genocide. Responsibility to protect means responsibility.
Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you for your testimony.
We will begin questions with our deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Ramadan, I have a couple of questions for you. We talk about 1982, when the Rohingya were basically stripped of their citizenship. What changed in 1982? Until then, they could work and were considered citizens.
I became aware of this situation almost six years ago. I have been speaking on this issue for six years, twice with the delegation from the Burmese government. The first time, I just got a blank stare. The last time when I brought it up, I was told, “No Rohingya,” as though the Rohingyas don’t even have a right to exist.
What changed in 1982, if you can give me an understanding of that?
Mr. Ramadan: Thank you for your efforts and dedication to this cause, not just in the present but the fact that you have been working on this for a while, before it came into the public light and became popular.
In 1978, the military attempted to expel the Rohingya and had an operation where they were planning to eliminate the Rohingya. Unfortunately, it was a premature plan, because there was no basis for their operation. That plan failed. They reassessed their plan, and they provided substance for their action, which is to show that the Rohingya are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and that they therefore had reason to carry out their operation.
This is why they had installed the 1982 citizenship law — to allow a pretense for the operation that they are undergoing in order to expel the Rohingya.
Senator Ataullahjan: Are you happy with the current Liberal government’s response? I was at that protest where the foreign minister said it looks like ethnic cleansing. What can we do? Why the reluctance of the media and governments to call it genocide?
Mr. Ramadan: With respect to Canada’s statements by the foreign minister and the Prime Minister — his letter — they have been using extremely harsh words of condemnation, which is great, and they have been at the forefront of condemning this unfolding massacre.
However, right now, every hour counts. We need to quickly move from words to action. Top officials at the UN, including Special Rapporteur Yanghee Lee — she said she’s calling on the nations of the United Nations to take action; there is no more time for condemnation. People are dying. As my colleague Anwar Arkani has said, people are literally just waiting to die in their villages inside Burma. We need to move forward.
The reason why nations and media have been reluctant to use the word “genocide” is because it is a loaded term and it has responsibility. This is why they have used “ethnic cleansing,” which really means the same thing, without the responsibility of “genocide.” This is why we’re urging Canada to use “genocide.” We know it comes with responsibility. We’re urging them to use that because of the responsibility it carries.
Senator Ataullahjan: We’re in agreement. At the protest, I said it’s the time for action. Words have had no effect.
I just saw a video where Aung San Suu Kyi is actually making a joke about what is happening. I don’t know if you have seen the same video. She is laughing about it.
Mr. Arkani, do you still have family in Myanmar?
Mr. Arkani: Yes, I still have a sibling. Two of my sisters were slaughtered and two of my brothers-in-law were slaughtered. I still have nieces and nephews, plus cousins, and my sisters also have grandchildren.
I do not have a word to console them. They think honestly, literally, I am the king of the world; I can change things with a snap of my fingers. They say, “Why are you sitting there idly and doing nothing? Don’t you have a heart? How have you become heartless? You have a good life in Canada. How have you forgotten us so quickly? We have been telling you there is no way for us to survive. There is no escape route. There is nothing to eat.”
The place where I was born and raised is far away from the Bangladesh border. People are in Bangladesh now, very close to the border, and there was not much of a barrier to cross. But for us, there is a big piece of flat land, and people are exposed to tigers.
There is a mountain range called the Mayu Range. There are around 40 mountains in that range. In the mountains — I have a video clip here if you are interested — the villagers are armed with automatic rifles and machetes, along with security personnel. They are waiting to kill all of them, slaughter them. They don’t use bullets because it costs money. Why not slaughter them like dogs? That’s the word they use. There is absolutely no means or other way for them to escape.
It is very difficult for me to sleep. Sometimes I go numb, and then I just turn off my phone. That’s how I sleep. There is nothing that I can do. At least sometimes it is good to talk to them while they are still alive. Every now and then they tell, “Please tell people, tell your government wherever you are. You told us that your country is a democratic country. You can talk to the people in power. Tell them either them or pray to God that our government or some other government comes and drops a big bomb so we die peacefully.”
The women are very scared that they will be brutally gang raped before they are slaughtered, and the men are afraid of being burned alive. Worse than that, they will throw children alive into the fire.
I would like to say one thing. I’m sorry that this is a very brutal thing, but you need to hear it. There is a village called Kansama. A woman had three pre-teen kids and a husband. Two of them were shot at close range. The husband was slaughtered. He was not shot; the kids were shot. Before they set the fire to the house, they dragged the woman, and they were raping her. Her youngest kid — I forgot if it was a son or daughter — was screaming for milk, and the army came and — have you ever heard in your life — tore apart that child. He put his boots on one leg, and the other leg he tore apart and threw them into the fire.
That is the situation in my country. Every hour, every day means we are talking about a lot of lives. It is not just one life. There are a lot of dead bodies they cannot hide. They take them to our capital city, where they dump them into the Bay of Bengal so no trace can be found in case there is an inquiry a few years later. When they burn, there is nothing left there to find. That is the situation.
The Chair: Thank you, Anwar, very much. We recognize how tough this must be for you.
Senator Eaton: When we hear your stories, we really do believe there is evil in its purest form in the world, but educate me a little. Going back to 1978, I think, when your father was taken and murdered, what was the spark? Was it over land? Was it simply hatred between the Buddhists and the Rohingya minority? Why such hatred, do you think?
Mr. Arkani: I was too young to understand those things. My elders told me that the hatred started in 1942, during World War II, when the British and Japanese were fighting there over land. Then some nationalists came up with the idea that they needed to get rid of all the Indians. At that time, there were a lot of business people.
Senator Eaton: So the Burmese wanted to get rid of the Indians?
Mr. Arkani: Yes. Burma was considered at that time as part of the Indian subcontinent under the British colony. When they were killing or getting rid of Indians, they thought it was a good time to take care of the Muslims there, the Rohingyas. Rohingyas are not only Muslims, actually; there are Hindus as well. So this time you get rid of them, the Hindus and Muslims.
Senator Eaton: Were Rohingyas seen as Indians? Why were they not seen as native Burmese?
Mr. Arkani: There might be some hidden agenda that we do not know. Actually, it started in 1962 when Ne Win took power from the democratically elected government. He was the dictator. We had a program in our Rohingya language from the Burmese national broadcasting radio service. He actually stopped it in 1965. Then he started implementing one thing at a time to eliminate all the Muslims. The constitution was drafted in 1974. It was only implemented in 1982. Before implementing it, they tried to get rid of these peoples. The initial intention was probably not to kill but just push them out.
Senator Eaton: Aung San Suu Kyi was given an honorary Canadian citizenship, and she won the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. I would love to hear your interpretation of her behaviour.
Mr. Arkani: She was the greatest inspiration for the entire Burmese population, including Rohingyas. Our people did everything in their capacity to help her get elected.
Senator Eaton: So you helped elect her?
Mr. Arkani: Before the election, of course, yes. Everybody was thinking she is the champion of human rights. She has collected all the awards there are to be collected around the globe. People never thought in their wildest dream that she would become like this.
Close to the election, she somehow systematically eliminated the Rohingyas from running for election, as well as voting rights. It is the first time in Burmese history, and she successfully did that. Her excuse was that if she didn’t do it, she would not be able to run or have power. Once she doesn’t have power, all of our things will not make sense and she will not be able to help. The Rohingya elders sat back and let her do it.
When she became the de facto leader of the government, she collaborated with the army at a time when initially people thought this is a bump in the road, a new democratic system. Later, it was too late for the rest of the world to have known that she was the one shielding the army. Not only in Canada but around the globe, people still think her hands are tied, and if she does anything, she will be either killed or put in jail.
It is not true. The army needs her more than she needs the army. She is the one who successfully lifted all the decades-old sanctions on the army generals, as well as some individual army generals who are engaged in producing drugs — not trafficking but producing. They have companies. She successfully lifted all the sanctions by hook or crook. So they need her as a shield. There are numerous statements by the Burmese government saying she is a good shield for the army to cover the crimes.
Senator Ngo: We know that on August 24, the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State chaired by the former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan released the report that was fully accepted by Aung San Suu Kyi, which suggested a peaceful way to end the regional conflict. After that, on the 25th, we see the horrible, outrageous violence.
Do you think that criticizing Aung San Suu Kyi is the answer to resolving this humanitarian crisis when she has no constitutional power over the military, not the police? You know that the military is the chief commander. They appoint the minister of defence. The commander-in-chief appoints the minister of the interior as well as the minister of border security. So basically, she has no power over the military, and the military answers to no one.
The question I’m asking is this: Would you just say that she is the shield of the military? When she spoke, she said that those guilty of human rights abuses will be dealt with under the full force of the law, which means, indirectly, incriminating the military.
So what do you think Canada should do? What do you think the world should do? Shall we focus on the real culprit, including the commander-in-chief, Min Aung Hlaing? The most effective way for the National Security Council is a visa ban. Is that the best way to do it instead of blaming her and taking no action?
Mr. Arkani: Thank you for the question. I believe it is both. We cannot just let her loose, saying, “Our hands are tied.” The power is with the military, as I said a minute ago. The military needs her more than she needs the military.
She is not only shielding the military; she is going beyond the call of duty to level all these facts as fake news, exaggerations and being one-sided — all of those. So far there have been five commissions of inquiry. All of those, including the one headed by Kofi Annan, were formed to buy time so they can kill as many Rohingyas as possible. Even Zaw Htay, the government spokesperson, said that Kofi Annan can raise a shield for the government. It was in July. He said the Kofi Annan commission is a shield for the government.
Now, yes, the military is doing things all the time. She is going around and covering everything. We can put targeted sanctions against the military generals, their families and their crony-related business. If they are crippled, then they will come to the sense that what they’re enjoying is not possible if they really do not care about other human life.
We need to address both.
Senator Ngo: Do you think the action of Aung San Suu Kyi is trying to avoid providing the hard-line generals sufficient cause to justify a coup d’etat against her democratically elected government?
Mr. Arkani: I do not know that part, but I can tell you that what she is doing is being done knowingly. She knows it is wrong, and she is the one officially — she has done a lot of things that the army government was not able to complete. One of those is the Rohingya were absolutely blocked from voting and from running. This is the only Rohingya-free parliament in Burma’s history, and this is the biggest outflow of refugees. She is the one who did that.
She is the only head of state in Burmese history to tell all the foreign diplomats not to use the word “Rohingya” in her country. She is the one doing everything to alienate the Rohingya.
Senator Ngo: What I mean is that the way she is doing it is to try to avoid the military justifying a coup d’etat against her elected government.
Mr. Arkani: I don’t think the military will execute a coup because they know that as soon as there is a coup, they will be segregated from the rest of the world, and they need the world.
Even if there is a coup, what Aung San Suu Kyi is doing is very wrong. She is lying through her teeth and the rest of the world is coming to recognize it. I don’t know what she’s afraid of.
Senator Ngo: I agree with you, but Myanmar has been isolated for decades under the military regime, so they survive. Her elected government is only 16 or 18 months old. Do you think we can give her a chance to proceed to see whether she can do it?
Mr. Arkani: She has had more than enough time to show what she is capable of. If we give more time, we are giving time to completely wipe out the Rohingyas as well as other minorities in Burma.
Senator Ataullahjan: I have a statement. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s the government officials who have said “no mention of Rohingyas,” not the military.
Mr. Arkani: It is the government, yes.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
Mr. Arkani: She is the head of foreign affairs, as well.
Senator Ataullahjan: And she has also said that there is no ethnic cleansing going on.
Mr. Arkani: Yes.
Senator Bernard: First, let me say thank you to the two of you for your compelling and frank testimony. I honour the pain that lies beneath it.
My question is around the naming. Mr. Ramadan, you clearly said that in naming it “genocide” and not “ethnic cleansing,” there is a responsibility. I would like you to spell out what you mean when you say there is a responsibility with the naming of this as genocide. What does that mean and what would the international community need to do, then, if we name this genocide?
Mr. Ramadan: Thank you for asking.
Canada is a signatory on the genocide convention, and it is also one of the foremost countries in pushing the R2P, responsibility to protect. Once you label it “genocide,” there is now an obligation as a signatory to the genocide convention to protect the communities that are under genocidal persecution. This is what we are calling on. It clears the road and the path where a country is now obligated to step in, protect and defend those who have nothing; they have nobody to protect or defend them.
It is as straightforward as that.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. I wanted to get it on the record.
Senator Martin: On that note, Mr. Chair, I’m looking at the definition of “responsibility to protect,” which also lists “ethnic cleansing” in the responsibility of the member states to pay attention to. “Genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” are both atrocious acts.
Thank you for your very compelling testimonies. Hearing your voices at our committee brings it even closer to us. For us, it’s what we are seeing in the news. There was an emergency debate in the house yesterday, but the timing of today’s committee — for us, we’re hearing from you, not the politicians, on what we must do to act as responsible Canadians in this global community.
Mr. Ramadan, you listed quite a few recommendations or asks of the Canadian government and Canadian politicians. As you said, there is no time to wait in that it’s already after the fact; these atrocities are happening.
Would you further specify the immediate things we need to do to prioritize this list you have given us? We should try and do all of this, but I feel as though there is an urgency to this issue. If we could come out of this committee with a very strong recommendation of what we need to do and in what order — would you look at the list and say, “This is something you can easy do and this is how”?
Second, what is your organization, or organizations like yours, doing to advance the action required on this file? Sometimes with governments it will take some time, but civil society, non-profit organizations and other advocacy groups can go in and do things very quickly. I’d like to hear specifically what you are working on.
Mr. Ramadan: Calling it a genocide shouldn’t take time; the French President has already done that and I think Canada could get on board with that.
When The New York Times previously called it a genocide, it caught fire and the world called it a genocide in the past, that’s what began the movement and the action and things escalated incredibly fast at that point. So if Canada comes out and calls it a genocide and starts communicating with the French government, we believe that something would be very quick to happen.
With regard to your mention of “ethnic cleansing” in the R2P, the problem is the definition by legal terms. So there is no actual clear, legal definition for “ethnic cleansing.” This is why we are being specific about the use of the term “genocide.”
With regard to aid, this is a separate thing and I believe there are separate institutions that can help deal with that immediately. Airlifting aid into the area is something that could happen immediately and I don’t think should require much deliberation or politics with regard to that. We just need to get aid, food, shelter and medicine to those people.
There is one counsellor there who is dealing with half a million refugees and the women that have been dealing with rape and children who have lost parents, and they are waiting around. There is nobody helping with these people. This is an area where Burma Task Force has been helping. We are not an aid organization. We don’t deal with aid, but we have been working with counsellors trying to get counselling for some of the women who have gone through rape as teenagers and move them through that. We have people reporting what is going on on the ground to get us up-to-date information, speaking with people and documenting losses that have happened in specific areas.
We have been working very hard here in Canada from our side. There is also Burma Task Force U.S.A. on their side. They have resolutions that are being put forward, but we and the office in the U.S. believe that Canada has a lot more opportunity here to move forward, considering what’s going on there.
Last week, we presented at the International Human Rights Subcommittee and we’re making sure that people understand the situation there. As the senator was saying, there also needs to be more focus on the military and not just Aung San Suu Kyi. We believe they are working out of the same book, but regardless, there needs to be more attention paid to the military.
These are long-term things and not so short term. If we want to summarize, the immediate thing to do is literally just call it a genocide and contact the French President. Tomorrow there is a Security Council meeting. I know Canada is not on the Security Council, but they can still attend and speak to the French President to push forward and get UN peacekeepers on the ground right now. This needs to happen immediately; this is the only way to save lives. There is nothing left. We have given them the chance and opportunity.
Just condemning them continuously, as we did last time in October, has emboldened them. They saw that the world didn’t do anything about it. They killed all these people, 90,000 fled, everybody condemned it but moved on with their normal lives and nothing came out of it. If we continue to just use words and hold no one accountable, it will get worse until it’s done.
The Chair: We appreciate your heartbreaking and compelling testimony this morning. It is about human rights. We have an obligation as a society and as senators to listen and to try to make our voice heard with your voices. We thank you very much for sharing yours with us here today.
On our second panel, we have the High Commissioner of Bangladesh with us.
We have just witnessed testimony from the Rohingya Association of Canada and the Justice for All – Burmese Task Force, which sets the tone for what we have been seeing on television, reading in newspapers and trying to understand. We want to thank the High Commissioner, His Excellency Mizanur Rahman, for being here, along with Minister Nayem Uddin Ahmed.
High commissioner, I understand you have an opening statement. We do have about 45 minutes and I’m sure there will be plenty of questions. Thank you very much for being here; we are happy you could make it.
His Excellency Mizanur Rahman, High Commissioner, High Commission for the People’s Republic of Bangladesh: Senator Munson, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, honourable members of the committee and distinguished guests, I sincerely thank the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for holding such a timely hearing on the unprecedented violation of human rights in the Rakhine State of Myanmar and the huge exodus of Rohingyas to Bangladesh.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to state very briefly who the Rohingyas are. The Rohingyas of Arakan are not a race or group, per se, developed from one tribe or one single racial stock. Rohingyas are a mix of people from numerous races and cultures. Initially, peoples of Indian origin, Bengalis, Arabs, Persians, Afghans and Central Asians came to Arakan mostly as agriculturalists, traders, warriors and preachers, mingled with the local people and settled in. Linguistically, they used Pashtun, Arabic, Urdu and Portuguese alongside Bengali. The Rohingya language has evolved since then and has taken on a completely new dialect from the Bengali language, so their Bengali language affinity does not mean that they shall be called Bengalis only.
Mr. Chairman, British history and other records suggest that the Muslims in Rakhine existed long before its annexation by the British in 1824. During the 7th and 8th centuries, Arab traders travelled to Arakan for business and preached Islam. In the 15th to 17th centuries, the southeastern part of Bengal was intermediately under Arakan rule. Rohingyas who settled in Arakan or Rakhine after 1825 were well indigenized well before the independence of Burma in 1948.
In 1954, the Prime Minister of Myanmar, U Nu, stated that the Rohingyas have equal status of nationality with Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Mon, Rakhine and Shan. During 1948 to 1961, Rohingyas were elected as members of Parliament.
Mr. Chair, subsequently, the 1982 Citizenship Act of Burma denied citizenship rights of Rohingya and identified them as foreigners, and the cocoon of the crisis started budding.
There were an estimated 1 million Rohingya living in Myanmar until 2016-17. Myanmar does not recognize Rohingyas as one of the 135 ethnic groups. They have been restricted from freedom of movement, education and public service. The legal conditions faced by Rohingyas in Myanmar have been compared with apartheid.
Mr. Chair, Rohingyas in Myanmar faced military crackdowns in 1978, 1991-92, 2012, 2015, 2016 and the latest on August 25, 2017. The counteroffensive of the Myanmar authorities of the August 25, 2017 attacks have failed to respect any norm of international human rights and humanitarian law. This has compelled more than 436,000, as we speak now — and the number is increasing — desperate Rohingyas to flee for Bangladesh to save their lives. This new influx is added to the existing 400,000 Rohingyas who entered Bangladesh in several rounds before August 2017. According to the UNHCR, now the number has reached more than 836,000. While fleeing the onslaught, some have been injured by the land mines planted along the border in an effort by the Myanmar authorities to thwart future returns.
Mr. Chair, the Myanmar state counsellor said in her diplomatic briefing on September 19, 2017, that more than 50 per cent of the Muslim villages are intact. This indirectly indicates that close to half of the Muslim villages were destroyed. Out of 471 villages, 176 have been completely emptied and at least 34 have been partially abandoned in the townships of Maungdaw, Buthidaung, and Rathidaung. As such, it has been derived from the Myanmar government version that half of the Muslim villages have been erased.
Mr. Chair, reports suggest Myanmar law enforcing agencies and their Rakhine accomplices are systematically burning villages one by one, and it is still ongoing.
According to Reuters, the most disturbing fact is that medics see the evidence of rape in the ethnic cleansing campaign. Doctors treating the Rohingya population who have fled to Bangladesh in recent weeks have seen dozens of women with injuries consistent with sexual violence. The medics’ accounts, backed with medical notes reviewed by Reuters, lend weight to repeated allegations ranging from molestation to gang rape. The medics say they do not attempt to establish definitively what happened to their patients, but they have seen an unmistakable pattern in the stories and physical symptoms of dozens of women. It seems apparent that rape as a weapon has been used to intimidate this ethnic minority with an objective of erasing them from Rakhine State.
Mr. Chair, Bangladesh appreciates the role of the United Nations, the European Union and the international community, including Canada, for their attempts to stop atrocities and bring stability to Rakhine State of Myanmar. The United Nations Security Council has expressed deep concern about the situation in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, where over 436,000 Rohingya Muslims have been forced to flee across the border to Bangladesh to escape from the increasing violence. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has said that the humanitarian situation is catastrophic and reported attacks on civilians by security forces are disturbing and completely unacceptable.
The United Nations in its repeated statements urged the Myanmar government and its authorities for “immediate steps to end the violence in Rakhine, de-escalate the situation, re-establish law and order.” The UNSG also added that the Rohingya Muslims “must be granted nationality or, at least for now, a legal status that allows them to lead a normal life, including freedom of movement and access to labour markets, education and health services.”
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, described the horrific incidents as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.” Refugees are pouring across the border into Bangladesh bringing with them stories of murder, rape and devastation.
Mr. Chair, the European Union has recently adopted a resolution citing the Rohingya as a minority group and has called upon the military and security forces in Myanmar to immediately cease the killings, harassment and rape of the Rohingya people and the burning of their homes. The Myanmar authorities have a duty to protect, without discrimination, all civilians from abuse and to grant immediate access to humanitarian aid organizations to all conflict areas and displaced people. Paragraph 14 of the EU resolution states that the EU stands ready to consider targeted punitive sanctions against individuals and entities.
In the light of the worsening situation in Myanmar, the European Parliament Committee on International Trade has decided to postpone their delegation to Myanmar to an unknown date as it was clear that the current political and human rights situation in the country, as outlined in the European Parliament’s resolution, does not allow for fruitful discussion on potential EU-Myanmar trade matters.
Mr. Chair, such new influx is an unbearable burden for Bangladesh as it has already been hosting around half a million Rohingya refugees who left Myanmar in several rounds in the past owing to military operations. Bangladesh cannot be the repeated victim of violence and instability in Myanmar.
Mr. Chair, the Honourable Prime Minister of Bangladesh has recently visited the refugee camps in the bordering district of Cox’s Bazar and was deeply troubled to see the hungry and hopeless Rohingya faces. Bangladesh is doing everything possible to provide temporary shelters to these people. While she said that it was difficult to stem one’s tears when one sees such atrocities, at the same time she has said that Myanmar has to stop the violence against innocent people and will have to take back the Rohingyas who have entered Bangladesh.
Mr. Chair, Bangladesh, as a responsible neighbour, has remained bilaterally active with Myanmar for more than a decade on the issue of repatriation. Recently, during the visit of the special envoy of the state counsellor in January 2017, Bangladesh proposed sustainable repatriation of Myanmar nationals sheltered in Bangladesh. Again, in May 2017, to start a discussion on a bilateral process for repatriation, a set of proposals was conveyed. We have not yet received any response from Myanmar on any of these initiatives. Bangladesh has never shied away from bilateral engagement with Myanmar. Rather, it has been trying its best to engage with Myanmar and has been persistent in its efforts to engage, with no tangible outcome.
Mr. Chair, after August 25, on several occasions, Myanmar military helicopters have been detected over Bangladeshi airspace. Recurrence of this violation of the airspace has occurred in spite of Bangladesh lodging a strong protest on the first instance. More recently, the Myanmar side fired upon a Bangladeshi fishing trawler, killing one person and injuring several others. Such actions are not only reckless and irresponsible but also indicative of provocative behaviour and diversionary tactics on the part of Myanmar.
At the seventy-second UNGA session on September 21, 2017, the Honourable Prime Minister of Bangladesh called upon the UN and the international community to take immediate and effective measures for a permanent solution to the Rohingya crisis. In this regard, she proposed five immediate actions. First, Myanmar must unconditionally stop the violence and the practice of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine State immediately and forever. Second, the Secretary-General of the United Nations should immediately send a fact-finding mission to Myanmar. Third, all civilians, irrespective of religion and ethnicity, must be protected in Myanmar, and for that, safe zones could be created inside Myanmar under UN supervision. Fourth, ensure the sustainable return of all forcibly displaced Rohingyas in Bangladesh to their homes in Myanmar. Fifth, the recommendations of the Annan commission report must be immediately implemented unconditionally and in their entirety.
Mr. Chair, we deeply appreciate Canada’s role in the wake of the Rohingya crisis and see Canada as a champion of human rights. Canada has issued press releases condemning the serious human rights violations in the Rakhine State of Myanmar, and has called for immediate action to end the violence and huge exodus to Bangladesh. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had teleconferences and wrote to the State Counsellor of Myanmar.
Also, there have been ministerial-level engagements between Bangladesh and Canada on the Rohingya issue. The Canadian government has provided humanitarian assistance for the vulnerable Rohingya people.
Mr. Chairman, the root cause of the Rohingya crisis lies in Myanmar. Therefore, the ultimate solution has to be found in Myanmar only. Our honourable Prime Minister has stated in the UNGA a five-point proposal, which I just mentioned, for a permanent solution to the Rohingya crisis. So we call upon Canada to pursue Myanmar in line with those proposals in order to unconditionally stop the violence against the Rohingyas so that the exodus to Bangladesh is stopped; to implement the recommendations of the Kofi Annan commission immediately and unconditionally in their entirety; to ensure sustainable return to Myanmar of all displaced Rohingyas; help Bangladesh with urgent humanitarian assistance; and pursue Myanmar bilaterally, and in New York, Geneva and other important fora, for sustainable resolution of this crisis.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: High commissioner, thank you very much. Before we open up to questions with the deputy chair and others, you praised Canada for what it has done. You talked about a press release and you talked about words.
We heard from a previous witness here in front of us who gave us very graphic testimony on what is happening right now. He talked about the need for more than words. We have to move with action. Is it the responsibility of the Canadian government to take action in this regard?
They talked about transport helicopters. They talked about all kinds of things.
We were there for Syrian refugees. We were there in words, and we are there in action. I know there are diplomatic things going on, but what more could Canada do?
Mr. Rahman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I already mentioned in my speech that the root cause is the Rohingya crisis, which lies in Myanmar. So the ultimate solution has to be found with Myanmar only.
For that reason, the five-point proposal that was given by our Prime Minister clearly mentions all the needs that are required. Then things can be worked out for the final details. But for the time being, as we have said, the Secretary-General of the UN should immediately send a fact-finding mission to Myanmar, and all civilians, irrespective of religion or ethnicity, should be protected and safe zones should be created.
The main thing is that these situations have been occurring in Rakhine State. Since 1978, it has happened, after the independence of Bangladesh. This time, it should be done so that a sustainable repatriation occurs and so all these people — these 836,000 or even more than that — go back and find a livelihood there, so that they can stay back as respectable citizens of Myanmar.
The Chair: Thank you. I don’t normally ask a question. It was a very compelling subject.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, high commissioner, for your compelling and very interesting testimony. You have given us the history of what has been happening. We’re very grateful to the Government of Bangladesh, because you have been dealing with your own problems such as floods and this influx of refugees.
Some time ago there was news that maybe the Government of Bangladesh would restrict the movements of the Rohingya. Could you please clarify that for me? And when the Rohingya do come as refugees, are all the services provided to all the Rohingya who come or only to the ones who are issued cards as being refugees?
Mr. Rahman: As you will understand, we have a huge influx of refugees in Bangladesh, and the Bangladesh government has a systematic approach to this whole issue. For this purpose, we’re in the process of creating an area of around 2,000 acres, building around 12 camps in order to accommodate these people. If these people are dispersed in the different parts of the country, it’s difficult to get them back. In a systematic way, these things are being approached.
What was your second question?
Senator Ataullahjan: With the Rohingya who come as refugees, are the services that you are providing to them, the aid that you are providing to them, given to everyone or only those who are registered as refugees?
Mr. Rahman: As you know, we used to host nearly half a million of them previously. They were being provided for. Now, of course, the people who have come recently are being provided for but it’s a very difficult job. Because of this, we want international assistance. We have received some assistance from different countries, including Canada, but we appeal for international assistance in this regard.
You will appreciate that it is a huge task. I do appreciate the conditions and all that, but we’re trying to ameliorate the situation, improve the situation.
Senator Ataullahjan: That was going to be my next question to you. What can Canada do to assist Bangladesh in the huge task that you have placed on your shoulders?
One interesting thing you said is about picking up on the aggressive behaviour of the Myanmar government, where they violated Bangladesh airspace. Also, the world is calling for them to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis. They’re just totally ignoring it. When Aung San Suu Kyi was a guest of the government earlier in the spring, I met with her spokesman Zaw Htay and I asked him directly about the Rohingya. He refused to even speak about it. He crossed his arms and looked at me and said, “No Rohingya.” We continue to ask the questions but we don’t necessarily get the answers.
So with this aggressive behaviour, the government seems very emboldened. Is it because when they started the campaign against the Rohingya initially there was silence around the world and nobody raised that issue? Did that embolden them?
Mr. Rahman: That’s a good question. This Rohingya issue has been going on for a long time. In Bangladesh, we are trying to engage with Myanmar, as I have mentioned.
In addition to this endeavour that I just mentioned, we proposed things on several other occasions. We proposed opening a memorandum of understanding on border liaison offices, and also for security cooperation dialogue. We tried to engage them, but we didn’t see any response .
And as for emboldening, as you said, the reason we want this problem to be solved is so that there is a permanent solution and these people go back to Myanmar.
The Chair: Minister, I don’t know if you had a few words to say as well. I neglected to ask you, and I apologize for that.
Nayem Uddin Ahmed, Minister, High Commission for People’s Republic of Bangladesh: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To add to my esteemed high commissioner, and going back to honourable senator’s question regarding the movement, as you understand, almost 436,000 Rohingya have already fled to Bangladesh. We had been hosting another 400,000. This is now almost 850,000.
Bangladesh has taken the initiative to register those Rohingya people so that government can streamline the relief work and rehabilitation work, and at the same time aid with medicine all those types of things. That’s why this dispersing of Rohingya people may occur, may disturb this process. That’s why it is one of the important issues.
Second, you have stated it is very important that the international community should speak. We are glad about the initiative of the Canadian government, but we believe there is a long way to go to help in this regard.
Specifically, senator, we need to bring Myanmar out of indifference. They should engage with Bangladesh to solve this problem. Until they are engaged with Bangladesh, they won’t even be able to understand what has already been done to the people and their need for rehabilitation in a safe zone, as our honourable Prime Minister has elaborated in the five points.
Mr. Rahman: As my colleague is saying, it’s time for Myanmar to engage with Bangladesh, to come out from this indifference and engage with Bangladesh. That is important, and we want the international community to pursue Myanmar in that direction.
Senator Ataullahjan: I wanted to especially point out that Sheikh Hasina has been very outspoken and she has visited the refugees. She has been very bold in calling the Rohingya crisis what it is. She is one of the leaders who has been very vocal and outspoken, and the world is grateful for that.
Senator McPhedran: I would like to explore a little further with you, minister and high commissioner. You used the term “engage.” Senator Ataullahjan has just acknowledged the investment that your Prime Minister is making in addressing this very serious situation.
What about the commander-in-chief? We know the state counsellor herself has heard from our Prime Minister about 10 days ago. Last night in our House of Commons there was an emergency debate on this issue, as I’m sure you’re well aware.
What I haven’t seen yet in reports, and I would like to know if you can give us further information, is the bilateral engagement between your country and your neighbour. In particular, are there military discussions? It would appear that the commander-in-chief is a very key decision maker in all of this. In addition, let me invite you to include Canada, if you have a sense of what Canada could be doing to support bilateral and multilateral efforts.
Mr. Rahman: Thank you, madam.
As I just mentioned, we have been carrying out our efforts to engage Myanmar. As I mentioned, there was a special envoy of the state counsellor who visited Bangladesh in January 2017, and he was given a proposal for the sustainable repatriation of these people.
Senator McPhedran: I know you mentioned that.
Mr. Rahman: We were on the sidelines of the UNGA on September 21 also. We proposed to the Myanmar delegation, which visited — our foreign minister had a meeting on the sidelines, and we also gave them a proposal in this regard.So we are trying to engage Myanmar bilaterally in this regard but without any response.
Mr. Ahmed: Madam, if I understood you correctly, you are talking about the commander-in-chief of Burma.
Senator McPhedran: Yes.
Mr. Ahmed: I mean Myanmar.
As you understand, there is a set procedure for diplomatically taking over the issues between our neighbour or any bilateral issues.
As His Excellency has mentioned, our foreign secretary, as a special envoy of the honourable Prime Minister, visited and had a detailed discussion on the issue, even with the state counsellor. Basically, August 25 is when the crisis broke out. This is September 27. It is one month and two days, and basically we have had no interaction or sitting with the Myanmar authorities until now. That’s the first thing.
The second thing is we are trying to do so. There is indication there will be a team visiting Bangladesh to see the situation.
Again, we want to stress that Myanmar should engage and must engage with Bangladesh to solve the problem. We definitely look forward to Canada and our friendly countries and, of course, the international community, so that we can try to put Myanmar in that direction, to solve the problem.
Senator McPhedran: There have been reports of land mines being placed by Myanmar forces right at the border with Bangladesh. Has that carried over into your country? Do you have direct engagement on this particular aspect of what is happening with the placement of land mines?
Mr. Rahman: I will say that once we have engagement with Myanmar, these things will come up. You have seen from the media that the land mines have been planted so that these people cannot go back, and then they are getting injured. This is another systematic way so that the Rohingya people cannot go back to their place of origin.
As my colleague was saying, in the past I think our foreign secretary visited Myanmar at least seven to eight times as part of a delegation. Our honourable Prime Minister has visited Myanmar twice. Compared to that, we haven’t had that much interaction with Myanmar, so we are trying to bilaterally solve this issue. And as I have said, we want Canada to pursue Myanmar so that this problem is solved at the earliest possible time and we can avoid humanitarian disaster.
For this reason, we have seen that the Prime Minister of Canada has taken a very strong role. He has spoken and also written letters to the state counsellor, and we seek his further active role in this regard.
Senator Martin: Thank you, high commissioner and minister. I feel so frustrated by what we are hearing in terms of the fact that you’re not even getting a response. If there is no acknowledgment by the very country in which this crisis is happening, what will break this situation? Who and how can we engage? The word “engage” is far too lukewarm or inappropriate in this situation.
I’m just trying to understand. We have the UN. We have all these countries, and we see in images what is happening to the people. So I’m just wondering, how do we break through and get Myanmar to “engage” so we can address the situation?
We talk about the Rohingyas, but in terms of Bangladesh and the pressure and the load that you are bearing because of what is happening in a neighbouring country, what support can the international community give to Bangladesh? There is the urgent situation that you must address, but first of all, how do we break through and get action on this very important and critical situation?
Mr. Ahmed: Thank you, madam. That is a very good question. We need to bring Myanmar out of indifference.
As you heard a few minutes ago, the high commissioner described the United Nations’ view on the crisis and the European Parliament’s stand on the issue. They have decided few issues. They have given a statement and expressed concern, and at the same time, they have postponed their trade team. They have also targeted some other issues.
Basically, these are the options. As you know, Myanmar had been under sanctions for many years. Now the issue is that it is important to communicate to Myanmar that you have to sit with the issue. You need to sit with the issue. You need to look at the human catastrophe, the suffering and tears of the people, of the children.
It is most disturbing. This morning I saw in the news that a separate camp has been made for children without parents.
So this is our shivering situation. The Honourable Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, is personally taking care of the issue. She is monitoring the issues hour to hour. I know that people from the Prime Minister’s office are also in place to look after the issue. But for how long can we do this and how much can we do?
The bottom line is that Myanmar needs to sit with us with the objective of solving the problem and to rehabilitate these Rohingya people so that they are in their own land — safe, sound and having a healthy life.
Mr. Rahman: I would like to add that the repatriation of Rohingyas was suddenly stalled in July 2005. There was some repatriation going on, but after that there was a total stoppage. We have tried to discuss further repatriation with them. We have a bilateral mechanism, called foreign office consultations, between the two foreign ministries. In the eight foreign office consultations, Myanmar had agreed to take 2,415 verified refugees. There was discussion of forming a joint group within two months, but after that everything went on hold and the joint working group met its natural death. This is how we have been trying to engage with Myanmar in the repatriation process.
Senator Martin: In terms of the process being followed right now, and all the multi-prong steps being taken to engage, to get Myanmar to accept responsibility, to go from indifference to action and to some sort of assumption of responsibility, this will take time. Is the world community doing everything that it can do?
I know Bangladesh is doing its part, but it sounds to me like it will take time, and there is no time. What is the game changer? Is there something we can do that is different, that we haven’t done, and that we need to call on the Government of Canada to be a part of?
Mr. Rahman: We have described to you the whole situation, and also the fact that the Bangladesh government is trying to engage with them, with no fruitful outcome. Also, we mentioned to you the steps taken recently by the European Union. I’m sure that Canada, being a champion in the human rights arena, can take the appropriate measures so that the five-point plan that has been put forth by our Prime Minister is implemented. That is a self-explanatory set of proposals. Once that is implemented, in the shortest possible time, this human disaster can be avoided.
Mr. Ahmed: I wanted to add a point in response to your question.
If we look at the five points described by our honourable Prime Minister in the general debate in the United Nations — talking about the safe zone and about implementation of the recommendations of the Kofi Annan commission — these are the specific targets we need to reach. Myanmar has to declare that, yes, we are going into these substantive issues. For example, the recommendations of Kofi Annan’s report are the most solid in terms of where the solution to the problem lies. At the same time, they should be equally humane and kind to the Rohingya people who are fleeing. That’s how we look at it.
Senator Ngo: Thank you for your presentations.
I’m going straight to the facts now. Out of the more than 450,000 Rohingya refugees who have crossed the border to Bangladesh, has Bangladesh recognized any Rohingya refugees who arrived at the border after August 25?
Mr. Ahmed: Thank you very much for the question. Not one Rohingya person was stopped at the border. Until today, wherever the fleeing and escape took place, they crossed the Naf River and found shelter in Bangladesh. Our Prime Minister is very clear that, yes, we shall give shelter. But the questions to the international community are: For how long? Where does it end? But Bangladesh is providing all our support and shelter in the context of the humanitarian aspect.
Senator Ngo: As you know, the number is over 450,000. Do you know how many have been recognized as refugees and able to receive UNHCR assistance?
Mr. Rahman: As I mentioned, the Rohingya people first entered Bangladesh in 1978. After that, they were repatriated in several batches. Approximately 236,000 of them were repatriated until 2005, but after that, around 34,000 verified Rohingyas were waiting in the camps to be repatriated. At the time, the process was stalled.
As you have noticed, there has been a huge influx. In addition to these 34,000 Rohingyas, there were unofficially nearly half a million of them in the country. As you know, this is a humanitarian crisis, so we didn’t stop them. They were there already.
Senator Ngo: Have any of them been recognized by the UNHCR as refugees who can receive assistance from UNHCR?
Mr. Rahman: The 236,000 people that were repatriated were given refugee status, and that is why Myanmar accepted them. Then 34,000 were given refugee status. They were in the process of being repatriated and it was stalled.
Now we are in the process of enumerating these people who have newly arrived, and the UN agencies are also there to enumerate them. This process of biometric enumeration has been going on.
Senator Ataullahjan: Minister, we have heard of instances — and I’ve specifically seen one photograph — of child traffickers moving in. Are you aware of that? I know that rape has been a huge issue, with multiple cases of rape being used as a weapon in subduing the Rohingyas. But in terms of child trafficking, is the Bangladesh government aware that that has started too?
Mr. Ahmed: I can guarantee that the Bangladesh government is cautious about the safety and security of the Rohingya people who have fled to Cox’s Bazar, the district of Bangladesh. Definitely, if there is an issue, there are extra patrol and security forces so that the security and safety of the people is ensured. We can assure you of that.
Mr. Rahman: The law enforcement agencies and the district administration are very much alert to avoiding this sort of situation.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your assurance.
The Chair: High Commissioner and minister, on behalf of the committee, I do want to thank you for what Bangladesh is doing. It must be difficult, but it is a humanitarian crisis, and your country has shown human spirit in this regard. We thank you both for being with us.
On our third panel on the plight of the human rights of the Rohingya before our Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, we have a familiar face before us: Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada; from Human Rights Watch, Farida Deif, Canada Director; and from Inter Pares, Kevin Malseed, Program Manager, Burma.
I don’t know if you heard the testimony earlier today, but you obviously know the issue quite well. Who would like to lead off?
Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada: Thank you very much, Senator Munson and committee members. It’s a pleasure to again be back with you.
This morning I was at a Canadian Human Rights Commission conference that is entitled “Beyond Labels,” which in many respects couldn’t have been a different human rights world. As I was walking over, I was thinking how that title, “Beyond Labels,” is so reflective of what is at the very heart of the plight of the Rohingya because, of course, it’s all about discrimination and being labelled. Of course, in Myanmar there is the added cruel irony of a government that won’t even refer to the Rohingya by their label, by their name, the obvious difference being that what is unfolding in Rohingya is of deadly overwhelming consequence.
Interviewed in Bangladesh, Mohammed showed an Amnesty International colleague of mine a bullet wound in his left leg. He had been shot while trying to escape. In hiding, he had seen soldiers tie up his brother’s hands behind his back with string. Later when he called his brother’s phone to see whether he was okay, a military officer answered the phone and simply said, “Your brother has been killed. You can come out of hiding now and take him.”
A 48-year-old man told us of the attack against his village of Yae Twin Kone on September 8, describing it as: “When the military came, they started shooting at people who got very scared and started running. I saw the military shoot many people and kill two young boys. They used weapons to burn our houses. There used to be 900 houses in our village. There are now only 80 left. There is no one left to even bury the bodies.”
“Your brother has been killed. You can come out of hiding and take him.” “There is no one left to even bury the bodies.” Those two voices remind us that the overwhelming crisis of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and mass displacement in Myanmar is much more than overwhelming, staggering numbers. Numbers that appear in Amnesty International reports, reports of other organizations, UN appeals and on the evening news are a grim reality made up of hundreds of thousands of painful and courageous accounts of individuals, loved ones, families and villages whose lives have been ripped apart and turned upside down over the course of this past deadly month.
Amnesty International researchers have been and continue to be active both along Bangladesh’s border with Myanmar and within parts of Myanmar itself. Along with other independent groups and experts, we have, through numerous direct interviews, alongside sophisticated analysis of satellite images, fire-detection data, photographs and video footage, confirmed that Rakhine State has been devastated by a campaign of widespread ethnic cleansing at the hands of the military in Myanmar that erupted on August 25.
Two weeks ago, we released findings pointing to at least 80 large-scale fires in predominately Rohingya areas in northern Rakhine State, almost certainly entire burned down villages. The satellite images of the burnings match with eyewitness testimony and images of homes being torched in those villages. Those numbers have only continued to rise as more evidence becomes available.
Contrary to claims made by Aung San Suu Kyi and other officials that the so-called military clearance operations had ceased on September 5, we have confirmed burning villages after that period, including as recently as September 14.
As villages have been attacked, burned and razed, we know that countless women, men and children have been killed, raped and badly injured, including being deliberately fired upon while fleeing. We do not have accurate numbers or statistics of those killed or injured because of the restrictions on access to Rakhine State that we and others face.
Amnesty International has also documented the use of land mines by the Myanmar military along the Bangladesh border. Civilians have been killed or injured in land mine explosions. As you will all know, land mines are illegal under international law, but to use them in an area through which refugees are fleeing is particularly and deliberately cruel.
Finally, of course, the human rights crisis, compounded by a humanitarian catastrophe due to the continuing restrictions on access to large areas of Rakhine for UN agencies and aid organizations, has, as you’ve just heard from the high commissioner, provoked an overwhelming refugee emergency, with indications that numbers of refugees flooding in neighbouring Bangladesh may soon even reach 500,000. Well over one third of the Rohingya population in Myanmar has now fled.
Bangladesh has absolutely responded with generosity, but it cannot cope without an infusion of addition tremendous levels of international support.
This crisis could have been prevented. As this entrenched reality of discrimination and abuse against the Rohingya has been in the front of world for not months or years but decades. It was largely met with indifference and inaction, including silence from the UN Security Council and more recently a decision last year at the UN General Assembly to stop pursuing the annual resolution on human rights in Myanmar.
Global indifference cannot continue. Canada can, should and must be a leader in that urgent effort, pursuing action in three key areas. The first imperative is refugee protection. As numbers rise exponentially, and overcrowding, weather, sanitary and other conditions mount, it is clear that Canada, which has already made contributions to help ease the strain in Bangladesh, must do more. That should include further generous financial contributions; a willingness to offer expedited avenues for resettlement and reunification; and, in our current role as Chair of the UNHCR’s executive committee, spearheading a coordinated and generous global response to the refugee crisis.
The second imperative is ensuring protection in Myanmar. It’s obvious what that includes, but it’s not so easy to attain: ending the abuses, launching de-mining activities, and opening up unhindered humanitarian and human rights access to deliver aid and monitor for violations.
Canada’s most important contributions here will come through working multilaterally. This means pressing the UN Security Council, being briefed today and tomorrow, to adopt a strong resolution condemning the violations; calling for an end; imposing a comprehensive arms embargo; pursuing avenues for bringing to justice individuals responsible for crimes against humanity; working to ensure that the UN General Assembly, currently in session, passes a strong resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar; supporting efforts to pass the resolution currently before the UN Human Rights Council to extend the work of the council’s Myanmar fact-finding mission for another year; and stepping out the multilateral world for a minute, Canada should take advantage of all bilateral channels to press all countries with whom we have dealings for action to end the crisis. That particularly means influential countries who need to be pressed to stand up and do more, China being at the top of the list.
Finally, the third imperative is to work for long-term human rights change in Myanmar. This violence occurs in a wider context of long-standing discrimination against the Rohingya, including denial of the right to nationality; severe restrictions on free movement; and access to education, health care, livelihoods, religious freedom and more.
There is also an entrenched pattern of unchecked hatred from public officials, religious extremists and other public figures. That all needs to be addressed. Kofi Annan’s recommendations point to many of the necessary steps forward.
Beyond the situation in Rakhine State, there are other serious human rights concerns in the country, including other situations of armed conflict and persecution in ethnic minority areas, including Kachin State and northern Shan State, which Amnesty International has documented extensively.
We also continue to be concerned about prisoners of conscience and violations of free expression, including against journalists.
My final note is that of course there is understandable necessary concern about the staggering crisis facing the Rohingya. Longer-term action will almost certainly need to address these other concerns as well. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Alex, very much.
We will continue with the presentations.
Farida Deif, Canada Director, Human Rights Watch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, for inviting me to appear before this committee to discuss the current human rights situation of the Rohingya. As many in this room are aware, since late August, after a militant attack on 30 police posts and an army camp, Burmese security forces have carried out horrific abuses, forcing nearly half a million of ethnic Rohingya Muslims into Bangladesh as refugees.
Human Rights Watch has found that serious violations committed by members of Burma’s security forces amount to crimes against humanity under international law. Our researchers have spoken to numerous Rohingya refugees who have fled in Bangladesh. They have described Burmese security forces shooting villagers, stabbing them with knives, beating people to death with spades and machetes, and setting fire to homes.
Human Rights Watch’s analysis of satellite images recorded between August 25 and September 16 show that over 280 villages have been destroyed by fire in northern Rakhine State since the violence erupted. According to witness accounts, Burmese soldiers have laid anti-personnel land mines at key crossing points on Burma’s border with Bangladesh and on roads inside northern Rakhine State prior to their attacks.
Many have noted during this hearing that this brutal campaign targeting the Rohingya population and resulting in countless deaths and mass displacement bears all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing, but the abuses involving forced deportation, murder, rape and persecution also constitute crimes against humanity under international law. Crimes against humanity are specific criminal acts committed as part of a widespread or systemic attack directed against any civilian population. Burmese military attacks on Rohingya have been widespread and systematic, and statements by Burmese military and government officials have indicated an intent to attack the population.
Mr. Chairman, the international community, including the Government of Canada, is right to express its outrage and criticism of the Government of Burma for its actions since late August. It is now clear that condemnation and shaming have proven ineffectual, whether directed at the military or State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi.
Burmese government officials have denied and are still denying allegations of atrocities as mere fabrications. The commander-in-chief of the military, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, recently made statements suggesting that the Rohingya do not even exist, that Burma’s Rohingya population are in fact Bengali, and that ongoing military operations are aimed at unfinished business from the Second World War when Rakhine Buddhist extremists are alleged to have slaughtered over 100,000 Rohingya people in Rakhine State.
In debating next steps on the Rohingya crisis, the Government of Canada should focus primarily on the military and consider what measures might best impact its behaviour. The time has come for real consequences, sanctions and punishments that will impose practical and financial costs on Burma’s senior military command. Human Rights Watch encourages the Canadian government to impose travel bans and asset freezes on security officials implicated in serious abuses, notably Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing; expand existing arms and military technology embargoes to include all security-related sales assistance and cooperation; and place a ban on all financial transactions by the Canadian government and Canadian businesses with military-owned enterprises.
These measures are not merely meant to stop bad behaviour. To be effective, imposed sanctions need to be attached to the calls and recommendations that the international community has already made to the Burmese government. All sanctions and other punishments should cite already-made UN demands and include them as benchmarks that need to be met for sanctions to be relaxed. These benchmarks include: stopping the brutal campaign under way and allowing humanitarian aid to flow freely; allowing access and cooperating fully with the UN-appointed fact-finding mission, as mandated by the UN Human Rights Council; ending restrictions on northern Rakhine State on humanitarian aid, journalists and independent investigators; facilitating the safe and voluntary return of refugees under international oversight; ending discriminatory practices against the Rohingya; and, finally, credible accountability for past crimes.
Canada should not engage in any cooperation or support to Burmese security forces until these conditions are met — this includes any counterterrorism funding to the Burmese police through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, like the programs announced by Global Affairs Canada in August — until the UN appointed fact-finding mission is allowed to carry out an independent investigation and clears the police of any wrongdoing.
In short, it cannot be business as usual with Burma. The Canadian government has spoken out strongly against the Burmese military’s brutal crackdown, but the time has come for Canada to do more than denounce abuses. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being with us.
We now have Kevin Malseed, following which we’ll be open to questions.
I remind senators that we have to end this hearing at 2 o’clock sharp. The Senate does sit at 2:00.
Kevin Malseed, Program Manager, Burma, Inter Pares: Thank you for inviting me here today.
Inter Pares has been working with local civil society groups in Burma for 25 years now. I myself have been involved in Burma for 26 years, the first half of that spent living and working in the ethnic states of Southern Burma.
Our current program supports the development of a strong, vibrant and diverse ethnic civil society and brings different ethnicities together to build communities where what is happening today to the Rohingya could not happen. We support both Rohingya and Arakanese civil society groups, including an organization bringing youth of the two populations together, and coalitions inclusive of both nationalities. Not all of these people hate each other. Hate has been systematically developed by successive ruling regimes as a tool of nation-building and control.
I use the term “ethnic” because at least 40 per cent of Burma’s population, in 60 per cent of its territory, identify as non-Bamar “ethnic” nationalities. Outside of Burma, many people are aware of the country’s struggle for democracy. Far fewer are aware of the even longer struggle for ethnic self-determination for an inclusive and federal democracy. This is what our program is working for. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy Party have been part of the democracy struggle, but they have never shown great interest in the ethnic struggle or recognized the strength that diversity brings. Like the military junta that preceded them, they appear to believe that highly centralized government can work in Burma, backed up by military force imposed with impunity. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself has said that she is a politician, not a human rights activist.
I raise this because it’s essential to understanding the Rohingya situation. I visited Rohingya displacement camps near Sittwe, the Arakan State capital, in early 2016. The conditions I saw there were appalling, and the government’s blocking of humanitarian aid was, and remains, a crime. Yet it reminded me of similar conditions I have witnessed among the Karen and other groups in Southern Burma, who for decades were burned out and hunted like animals by Burma’s Tatmadaw military or corralled into similar guarded camps for use as forced labourers. Since 2011, the Tatmadaw has been attacking civilians in Kachin and northern Shan states, while the elected government has denied military atrocities and systematically blocked international aid to displaced people, just as it is doing to Rohingyas. There are two common threads here: a governing regime that attempts to win support by turning the population against a demonized other, and a military that responds to any resistance by unleashing scorched earth tactics targeted against civilians.
I’ve been interviewing villagers and documenting Tatmadaw behaviour for 25 years now, and I can tell you that what you’re seeing against the Rohingya right now is standard operating procedure for the Tatmadaw. What you’re seeing is nothing new for people who live there. What’s new is that it’s now being conducted under an elected government and that it has captured global attention. The attacks are being perpetrated by the Tatmadaw, by border-guard police who are under military command, and by state-run militias and radical gangs who have been encouraged, supplied and supported by the military. The constitution places the military outside of government control. However, government criticism of atrocities would put military leaders on notice, while making perpetrators fear some possibility of justice. Even the previous military-aligned President, Thein Sein, criticized the military and called for an end to the military campaign in Kachin State. Instead, by denying military abuses and defending any and all military actions, the current government is strengthening the military sense of impunity and freedom to act as it pleases. This renders the government complicit in the ongoing abuses. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself has threatened to have anyone, including journalists, arrested if they express any sympathy for the Rohingya people, while labelling reports of human rights abuses as “fake news” and “fake rape.”
The government and military have claimed that their actions are in response to attacks on military and police posts by Rohingya militants. Our partner organizations on the ground have information from local villagers that casts doubt on that. Locals have told us that there was a significant Tatmadaw troop build-up, deploying hundreds of soldiers to border-guard police posts in Arakan State in the weeks before August 25, the day of the alleged militant attacks. The government claims that six police posts in Maungdaw town were attacked on August 25, but locals there say that there were no such attacks there and that some of the police posts named do not even exist. No such attacks have been independently verified.
What did occur on August 25, according to villagers, was that the pre-deployed troops launched unprovoked attacks against their villages. For example, in the village of Tamantha, north of Maungdaw, Tatmadaw, border-guard police and militia troops began looting market shops that morning, and when shop keepers tried to stop them, they immediately opened fire, then began burning houses. This suggests that the pogrom against Rohingya civilians was planned in advance, with any attacks on posts that may or may not have happened used as an excuse.
Rohingya people are now saying they are tired of hearing international rhetoric that is not backed by any action. In this situation, we recommend that Canada advocate an international arms embargo against Burma’s Tatmadaw military; impose a travel ban on all Tatmadaw officers and senior government officials; review the former SEMA sanctions that were prematurely lifted in 2012, particularly looking at targeted sanctions against military and government officials who have actively supported the violence; pressure the Burmese government to support human rights for all, immediately facilitate access for humanitarian aid in Arakan State and allow the fact-finding mission mandated by the UN Human Rights Council immediate and unfettered access to the region, along with independent journalists; join with other like-minded governments to amplify the above pressure; provide humanitarian support to Rohingyas on both sides of the border, while continuing to support initiatives such as the Inter Pares program to build inter-ethnic cooperation; and open up to accepting more Rohingya refugees to Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Kevin, for your testimony.
We have 20 minutes or so. We’ll start the questioning with the deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your testimony.
When we are speaking about what is happening to the Rohingya, it’s being referred to as ethnic cleansing. I notice that you referred to it as ethnic cleansing, too. Our previous witness, Mr. Ramadan, said that “ethnic cleansing” is a euphemism for “genocide” and has no legal status in international law. Why is the world afraid to call it what it is, a genocide, and why keep referring to it as ethnic cleansing?
Mr. Neve: Amnesty International is one of the organizations that has referred to it as ethnic cleansing. It’s very true that “ethnic cleansing” is not a legal term in international treaties. It is a concept that has been increasingly used by governments and UN agencies and other human rights experts over quite a few years now and does have some clear meaning and significance and, I think, does convey a sense of gravity and seriousness that is important.
Amnesty International and others, like Human Rights Watch, have also been very clear that what is happening constitutes crimes against humanity and very clear and serious legal consequences and implications flow from that.
With respect to the question of genocide, Amnesty International is one of the organizations that has not yet publicly said it is genocide. It is not, by any means, suggesting that it is not. Our silence on the point should not be interpreted as disagreeing that it may be genocide. We certainly have pointed to concerns that the conditions for possible genocide and the need to be acting to prevent genocide are absolutely in place.
The question of whether it constitutes genocide, per se, is a very technical legal question. There are significant evidentiary burdens that flow from that, because it’s all about being able to demonstrate clear intent to eliminate a group, not only to chase them, or all of the horrific things that are happening. There is that significant extra evidentiary question of intent.
Amnesty International and others may soon, or in the midterm, feel that the conditions are there and the evidence bears it out. We think that in the world, while it is perhaps useful to continue to have that debate, what is most important is that the actions that need to be taken now, even with respect to what are so clearly established — widespread crimes against humanity — is where our focus should be.
Mr. Malseed: I would second what Alex just said, particularly about the question of genocide. I believe if you look at the wording of the Genocide convention, yes, some of the conditions are met. At the same time, governments are notoriously reluctant to call anything genocide because, under that convention, if they call it genocide, they are required to take whatever action is necessary to put a stop to it, including military intervention. No one has the political will to do that in this case.
So I think, as Alex said, it’s a useful debate to be having. At the same time, that debate can happen off to one side. What is really crucial is that things have to happen now, regardless of what you call it.
Ms. Deif: I would agree with both my colleagues that the legal understanding and the legal discussions that are under way now are useful and important, but what is most important is action and really focusing attention on the Burmese security forces and the military in particular. There has certainly been a lot of discussion in Canada focusing on Aung San Suu Kyi and her Canadian citizenship, but the focus has to be on the perpetrators of these really gross human rights violations, and that’s the Burmese military. That’s what we hope for Canada to push forward and act upon.
Senator Ataullahjan: Correct me if I’m wrong, but the UN has not called for any sanctions against Myanmar. Has anybody called for sanctions? There is a lack of the strong language that needs to be used, and I personally feel the time for words is gone. It’s time for action. We have seen this happen before. In retrospect, the world will say, “Never again, never again,” yet it keeps happening.
Everyone looks at the UN, but why are they so quiet? Like we heard from the high commissioner in Bangladesh, where Myanmar is attacking and they are entering into the airspace of Bangladesh. They are very emboldened, but the world has kept silent. This problem has been going on for many, many years.
Burma has recently come out and the world community is so happy that Aung San Suu Kyi was released, and they were hoping they would move forward. Did they not want to criticize them? What is it? What makes Burma so special?
Mr. Neve: Obviously, we begin by looking to the Security Council, because that’s where real decisions and real action happen within the UN, including some of the things we’ve talked about, like an arms embargo. There, it comes down to Security Council politics, and certainly China, Russia and their veto. China, in particular, has long had the back of the Myanmar government, including the military, and it has either vetoed or threatened to veto Security Council action consistently going back many years.
That’s why there was this long period of UN Security Council silence. The statement that came out of the Security Council two weeks ago or so wasn’t a resolution. It was the first time the Security Council had spoken on Myanmar in nine years. It was a statement; it wasn’t a resolution. It certainly wasn’t the statement any of us would have written, but it was something. That means that China was on board with that statement being prepared.
Does it mean that there is a tiny opening and some opportunity for leverage with China? I think there needs to be a China strategy for governments like Canada working in concert with like-minded allies to try to keep moving China along.
Mr. Malseed: It is interesting that the Chinese position may be shifting somewhat on Burma now. It’s not very clear. They partly have been seeing Aung San Suu Kyi as being too close to the West, so they don’t feel the same impetus to stand behind everything the Burmese government does anymore. So there might be a bit of room to move there.
Another thing I think that has happened in terms of the international community in general is that the international community and the UN have become so tired over the decades of not being decisive or not knowing what to do about Burma that when the NLD government was elected, in particular, and in the transition since 2010, they were just wanting to jump on that, to throw everything they had behind that and support Aung San Suu Kyi’s government in everything prematurely.
As people on the ground in Burma will have told you, especially ethnic people, if anyone would listen, you shouldn’t jump on that bandwagon, but they did. They wanted to treat issues like the Rohingya, the Kachin and northern Shan State situations as though these were somehow marginal to Burmese democracy and they could be separated and solved down the road without realizing that these situations are symptomatic of the flawed nature of Burma’s transition to democracy, which has vested too much power in a very centralized government linked to the military and a flawed constitution. You have to see this as part of the whole picture, not as a marginal issue.
Senator Ataullahjan: Mr. Malseed, you spoke about August 25, where they are saying that they were attacked. Do you know if the Rohingya people have access to arms? They don’t have access to food. Do they have access to arms such that they are in a position to be able to attack? What you’re saying is that that attack never happened.
Mr. Malseed: I’m saying that there is no verification of any of the attacks that the government claimed happened. There have been some interviews with Rohingya people who claim to be part of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, who claim that they did an attack. It’s hard to know how much did or didn’t happen. I’m just saying that according to villagers in a lot of the villages where the attack supposedly happened, they say it didn’t happen.
In terms of access to arms, you’re right. Rohingya people have faced so many restrictions on everything they do for so long, how are they suddenly supposed to have sourced this great stream of arms?
Senator McPhedran: I would like to bring a gender-based lens to my questions. Do you have any reason to be concerned about the accuracy of the estimation that about 70,000 of the refugees in Bangladesh are women and are pregnant, a great many of them pregnant as a result of sexualized violence in conflict?
Also, do you see any potential constructive contribution that an upcoming Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation that is scheduled to go to Bangladesh, as well as Sri Lanka, in about five weeks’ time could make? If you have any specific requests or suggestions, I would be grateful for those.
The last part of my question is whether you think there is any significant value in a movement to remove the honour of Canadian citizenship from the state counsellor.
Ms. Deif: On the question of sexualized violence, certainly our researchers on the ground who are interviewing Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh have interviewed women who have alleged that Burmese security forces have raped them. Or they have witnessed rapes.
I couldn’t speak to the numbers that we’re talking about, but we’re talking about a situation that is very fertile ground. The level of impunity that we have seen by the Burmese security forces in Rakhine State, all the indications point to the fact that sexual violence is being used to really terrorize the population.
In terms of the question about removing Canadian citizenship from Aung San Suu Kyi, I would say that we really need to be focusing on the perpetrators of the abuses. We need to be taking action. Canada should be taking action that focuses on the perpetrators. That includes ensuring that Canadian businesses and the Canadian government are not doing any business with Myanmar military-owned enterprises. There are two in particular that I would flag as being important, both the Myanmar Economic Corporation and the Myanmar Economic Holding Limited. These are two Burmese military-owned enterprises that Canadian businesses and the Canadian government should not be doing business with.
Over and above that, it’s important for Canada to take all action to review its bilateral relationship. We’re not only speaking about a bilateral relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi, but with her government and the country as a whole. That review has to entail ensuring that Canada is not unwittingly facilitating any abuses by providing funding to Burmese police officers as part of counterterrorism funding that Canada provides to all ASEAN member states that was recently announced in August.
This funding really needs to be reassessed. There should be no flow of funding to Burmese police officers or to Burmese security forces of any kind until a UN-mandated fact-finding mission investigates the situation on the ground, has granted visas to do this investigation and clears the police of any wrongdoing.
So far, what we have seen from the Canadian government statements is that they have been strong in condemning the abuse on the ground, but, unfortunately, often fail to mention the UN fact-finding mission. This was the fact-finding mission initiated by the UN Human Rights Council. We still hear, oftentimes, about the Annan commission and the recommendations. That was also included in a statement by the Prime Minister.
I think it’s very important for this government to signal that the Annan commission is no substitute for the UN fact-finding mission because the Annan commission was not established to investigate human rights abuses on the ground. We have not heard yet any statements that refer specifically to the UN fact-finding mission.
In terms of the senator’s question earlier, there certainly was a premature interest and re-engaging with Burma, with welcoming it into the international community. Partly that is because of the resource-rich nature of the country, unfortunately.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that.
Senator Omidvar: My question relates to Ms. Deif’s last comment about the UN fact-finding mission. We know that no fact-finding mission has, in fact, been approved by the government. However, I note that Aung San Suu Kyi recently invited the diplomatic community to enter Myanmar and to determine the state of Muslim integration into Rakhine State. She called it successful integration. Are you aware whether this is being followed up by the government, by any specific invitations, and have diplomats entered Myanmar on their bona fides to investigate? If so, are any Canadians among them?
Mr. Malseed: I’m not aware of direct action related to that statement. Actually, if you look closely at what she actually said, it was not, “Come in and you can go and do things.” She said, “Come in and work with us, the government, to figure this out.” She never said anything about them actually having access to people on the ground without the government minders and the military being there.
Ms. Deif: Aung San Suu Kyi, the state counsellor, visited Ottawa in June. Her meeting with the Prime Minister was ostensibly to study Canadian federalism. That was part of her mission or mandate while coming to Ottawa.
I think it’s incredibly important for the international community and the Government of Canada not to be blinded by these attempts to show off certain parts of the country that are working well or to attempt to look into and study federalism and to impose it internally. We’re far beyond that state at this point.
Senator Omidvar: We don’t have the presence of media outlets in Myanmar, and access by NGOs to information is difficult. The diplomatic communities don’t seem to have any access. How are we getting reliable information?
Mr. Malseed: There is actually some independent media, although ironically, under the NLD government, they have cracked down on media freedom and have been arresting journalists, particularly for anything to do with Rohingya.
We support, for example, independent ethnic media groups who aren’t registered with the government. One of those is a Rohingya media group. They did research and actually released a report earlier this year called Witness To horror, which relates to the other senator’s question in that it documented the existence of systematic rape by Burmese military forces in Rohingya villages before this latest wave of violence.
The Chair: We want to thank you for being here. There are more questions, but we will have an opportunity to ask those questions because we’re continuing this special hearing on this important issue of our time.
On Monday we will have the Canadian Burma Ethnic Nationalities Organization, Fortify Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and Global Affairs Canada. So we will continue this with another special hearing.
We want to thank all three of you very much. We’re all paying attention. As we have heard, action is stronger than words. Your words were very important today. We hope governments do take action. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)