Proceeding of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 35 - Evidence - Meeting of October 31, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 31, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:30 a.m. to study 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 Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like all senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I am Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee.
Senators, is it agreed that filming by a private company be authorized during this meeting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Our other deputy chair has just joined us, so I will have her introduce herself.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: We have the east very well covered today, with three senators from Nova Scotia and one from New Brunswick, and Ontario is here.
Since late August 2017, over 725,000 Rohingya refugees fled to Bangladesh to escape violence in Myanmar, where they are a stateless Muslim minority. The vast majority of Rohingya refugees reaching Bangladesh are women and children, including newborn babies. Many others are elderly people requiring additional aid and protection.
In September and October 2017, our committee held two meetings and heard from 16 witnesses. Now we are looking for an update on the plight of the Rohingya refugees.
Today our meeting is in two parts. During the first hour we shall hear from officials about the government’s response to the situation of the human rights of the Rohingya refugees. During the second hour, we shall hear from a representative of the Rohingya Human Rights Network and Professor Payam Akhavan, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and a former UN prosecutor at The Hague.
Let me now introduce, from Global Affairs Canada, Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia Pacific, Donald Bobiash. I will ask you to introduce your colleagues.
Donald Bobiash, Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia Pacific, Global Affairs Canada: I would like to introduce Rosaline Kwan, Director, Southeast Asia Division; Stephen Salewicz, responsible for humanitarian assistance at Global Affairs Canada; Rhonda Gossen, Senior Policy Advisor, Bangladesh; François Lafrenière, Director, Bilateral Assistance Program for Myanmar; and Cory Anderson, an expert on sanctions.
The Chair: We will start with your presentation, and then the senators will have questions
Mr. Bobiash: I thank the Senate committee for the opportunity to speak today about the ongoing crisis in Myanmar’s Rakhine State and neighbouring Bangladesh. My colleagues and I are pleased to give you an update on actions taken by the Canadian government to address this terrible tragedy.
Having visited the Kutupalong refugee camp where there are almost one million refugees crammed into an extremely small area, one is overwhelmed by the nature of this tragedy. However, on the positive side, it is heartening to see the response of many Canadians who are doing what they can to reduce the suffering of many refugees.
I would also like to commend the work of the Senate committee, which I know has dedicated a tremendous amount of time to follow up on the Rohingya refugee crisis. I commend you for those actions.
Let me give the context of the current situation. By way of background, the Rohingya are an ethnic minority, traditionally living in Myanmar’s Rakhine State. Interaction between the Rohingya and the ethnic Rakhine community, who are mainly Buddhist and form the majority, has long been tense and has often turned violent. The Rohingya are not recognized as one of Myanmar’s national Indigenous ethnic groups and mostly are not granted Myanmar citizenship. According to the UN, the Rohingya are now the world’s largest stateless community.
The recent crisis did not appear in a vacuum. It is part of a larger, long-standing and complex history of deeply rooted inter-ethnic and state-sponsored violence, widespread discrimination and human rights abuses. This is the case not only in Rakhine State but in Myanmar as a whole.
As a result of the ongoing violence, over 730,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar to Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. While numbers have slowed recently, Rohingya are continuing to arrive in Bangladesh today. With previous waves of asylum seekers, the number of Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar now nears one million. The camps that have grown in Cox’s Bazar now together constitute the largest refugee camp in the world, Kutupalong, which I was able to visit a year ago.
This situation puts tremendous stress on the Government of Bangladesh. Its generosity for hosting these communities has been internationally recognized. It is also heartening to see all these professionals in the field, including many Canadians, working toward a sustainable solution.
[Translation]
The Rohingya population in Cox’s Bazar is highly vulnerable. Having fled conflict and experienced severe trauma, these people live in extremely difficult, congested conditions — recently aggravated by the severe monsoon rains and flooding. The humanitarian situation in Rakhine State and other conflict-affected regions of Myanmar, is equally dire. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, an estimated 530,000 Rohingya remain in Rakhine, including more than 125,000 in camps for internally displaced persons, or IDP camps, since the violence in 2012.
To date, Myanmar has not taken sufficient steps in addressing accountability and repatriation issues, or to fully implement the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, chaired by the late former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan — the single most important roadmap we have for addressing the root causes of the conflict. In any case, full implementation of its 88 recommendations will take many years and will require a comprehensive approach by the Myanmar government, supported by a well-coordinated international response, including from Canada.
[English]
On May 31, 2018, Myanmar announced the establishment of a domestic Independent Commission of Inquiry, headed by two national and two international commissioners. However, given Myanmar’s poor record of domestic investigations, the commission is being treated with deep skepticism by the international community, and Canada does not view this as a credible endeavour.
Despite agreements signed with Bangladesh and various UN agencies to address issues of repatriation, these steps are modest and have not translated to concrete results.
Unfortunately, the conditions for the safe, voluntary and sustainable return to Myanmar currently do not exist. Access for the provision of life-saving humanitarian assistance in Myanmar remains extremely challenging. The United Nations Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Myanmar has established an office in Nay Pyi Taw, the capital. However, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Dr. Yanghee Lee of South Korea, has continuously been denied access to the country.
As you will recall, the United Nations Human Rights Council established in March 2017 an independent international Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, known as FFM, to establish the facts and circumstances of the alleged human rights violations and abuses in that country. Last month, the FFM released its full report. It is a sobering 444-page document outlining massive violations by the military in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states.
On September 27, 2018, following the recommendation of the mission, a UN Human Rights Council resolution was adopted, establishing an ongoing independent accountability mechanism with a mandate to collect evidence and prepare case files for future criminal proceedings. Independently, the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court decided that the court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged crime of forced deportation of the Rohingya, despite Myanmar not being a party to the statute. The ICC prosecutor, Ms. Fatou Bensouda from The Gambia, has now launched a preliminary investigation.
From the beginning of the crisis, the Government of Canada has provided a focused response. This has involved an active international outreach and travel program for both Minister Freeland and Minister Bibeau who have travelled to the Rohingya refugee camp in Bangladesh. They have actively engaged in several major international fora, including the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM, the G7 foreign ministers meeting, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers. There have been activities on the margins of Canada’s G7 summit and, most recently, on the margins of the UN General Assembly.
In multilateral fora in Geneva and New York, we have served as a convening power in order to coordinate responses and share information. As part of these efforts, on October 23, 2017, the Prime Minister appointed the Honourable Bob Rae as special envoy to Myanmar. His final report was released on April 3, 2018. The appointment of Mr. Rae as special envoy has raised Canada’s profile internationally, and Mr. Rae continues to engage on this issue at every occasion. I understand that he has presented before your committee.
Informed by his recommendations, Prime Minister Trudeau unveiled Canada’s strategy to respond to the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar and Bangladesh, dedicating $300 million over three years toward four core objectives: alleviating the humanitarian crisis, encouraging positive political developments in Myanmar, ensuring accountability and enhancing international cooperation.
Consistent with Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, the strategy places a central emphasis on the needs of women and girls and puts forward concrete and timely initiatives to promote human rights, gender equality and human dignity; to improve living conditions of displaced Rohingya, to help host communities in Bangladesh and to promote peace and security.
Since 2017, Canada has provided more than $66.1 million for the provision of life-saving and gender-responsive assistance to refugees, displaced people and the communities hosting them. Canada has also demonstrated leadership in working with the World Bank and the Government of Bangladesh to implement an innovative mechanism in which every $1 provided by Canada results in $5 in grant funding, and Canada is providing approximately $16.3 million toward that end.
Global Affairs is also launching several development projects to help address the needs of Bangladesh host communities, particularly women and children, in areas such as income generation, skills training, improved nutrition for pregnant and lactating women and children under five, and social cohesion. New development projects in both Myanmar and Bangladesh will provide much-needed support to address sexual and reproductive health and rights, and sexual and gender-based violence.
Canada will support all efforts toward implementing the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State recommendations, bringing perpetrators of gross human rights violations to account and achieving a political solution to the plight of the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities in Myanmar. Enhancing coordinated international efforts to address the crisis is a central pillar of our response.
[Translation]
Throughout the year, the Government of Canada has been steadfast in its advocacy, and continues to engage with stakeholders and the international community at every opportunity. Minister Freeland and Minister Bibeau travelled to the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh and have been regularly engaged in international fora. Since our last meeting, no less than 30 statements and announcements specific to the crisis were made.
[English]
Canada has also created an international working group on Myanmar to foster a constructive exchange of views with 20-plus countries on international engagement, on humanitarian situation, on accountability and on the building of political will for multilateral resolutions. Canada has hosted four informal meetings, including two in the last 30 days: one led by Minister Freeland and a second where the chair of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar and the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar briefed on their perspectives of the crisis.
On the important subject of accountability, Canada served as an early advocate for the Human Rights Council resolution, effectively securing the establishment of an independent mechanism and extending the fact-finding mission’s mandate. Canada co-sponsored this resolution along with 104 other countries. Canada is now taking an active role at UN headquarters to advocate for the mechanism to ensure it receives the necessary financial resources to be effective.
In response to the gravity of the human rights situation in Myanmar in 2007, Canada imposed sanctions on the country through the special economic measures regulations. These sanctions include an arms embargo and dealings prohibitions targeting both entities and individuals that result in an asset freeze. These sanctions remain in place. Since then, Canada has imposed further sanctions on seven individuals involved in the military operations launched in Rakhine State. This followed targeted sanctions announced on February 18, 2018, against Major-General Maung Maung Soe under the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act.
Following the conclusions of various civil society and UN reports, Canada, through a motion passed unanimously in the House of Commons, was the first country to call the situation in Myanmar a genocide, a position now repeated by the head of the fact-finding mission who calls the situation an ongoing genocide. A unanimous consent motion in Parliament revoked State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi’s honorary Canadian citizenship in response to her complicity. This is also a reflection on the need to put pressure on both the civilian and military components of the Government of Myanmar.
We have also taken a leadership role in convening states in Geneva and New York to push for accountability for the perpetrators of heinous acts. Minister Freeland has invested considerable time and effort in speaking to these issues, including her appearance before the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in May when she again called for international action to address this crisis.
Human rights remain at the centre of Canadian engagement in Myanmar. While much has happened during the past year, where do we go from here?
Simply put, Canada continues to advance all four components of our strategy, including encouraging positive political developments in Myanmar and helping the most vulnerable and marginalized, especially women and girls. In this, Canada strongly supports efforts toward a successful, inclusive peace process leading to a democratic, federal Myanmar. Myanmar is also expected to hold elections in 2020.
[Translation]
Canada will be supporting development initiatives that respond directly to the crisis, in line with the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State. By supporting all vulnerable communities in a conflict- and gender-sensitive way, Canada will help to promote the conditions in which all communities can live in safety, security and dignity. Canada’s international assistance also supports positive developments in Myanmar that help improve the human dignity, well-being and rights for all vulnerable and marginalized people throughout the country, including in Kachin, Karen and Shan States. Canada’s development efforts will contribute to a future in which diversity, inclusion, human rights, and peace and security are respected, putting women and girls at the centre of these efforts.
[English]
Canada continues to advocate with the Government of Bangladesh and the international community for a strategy to deal with the refugees in Cox’s Bazar.
We are also working with the Government of Bangladesh, the UN, and international and local NGOs to support refugees and host communities, including the promotion of social cohesion. We will also continue to advocate for education and skills training for the Rohingya in Bangladesh.
Canada strongly supports the creation of an independent accountability mechanism and the extension of the fact-finding mission’s mandate through the Human Rights Council and will continue to advocate for its funding. The UN Human Rights Council resolution is part of our continuing effort, in coordination with our international partners, to hold the perpetrators of this genocide to account.
Canada will continue to work closely with the international community to protect all people from the gravest crimes under international law, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Canada will keep pushing for strong language in upcoming resolutions, including at the UN General Assembly, and will keep advocating for the UN Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court.
In conclusion, I would like to end with a quote from the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar’s report:
. . . the cycle of violence, injustice and impunity in Myanmar will end only if there is genuine accountability.
Canada shares the special rapporteur’s call for the international community to stand firm in promoting accountability and to investigate and prosecute those responsible for these atrocities.
Within Myanmar the space for freedom of expression has been shrinking, hate speech remains rampant and is compounded by a decades-long campaign of discrimination against minorities and violations of human rights. While the magnitude and complexity of the challenges ahead are daunting, we cannot afford to be silent.
These extraordinary challenges require a global and comprehensive response. Canada will continue to work with the international community to address issues of human rights in Myanmar and to support those affected by this truly historic crisis.
Senator Ataullahjan: I have a simple question. Were we the first country to call it a genocide? I thought it was the French President.
I remember the pressure on Canada to call it a genocide from people who knew that I had been talking about the Rohingya crisis since 2012. I was under the impression it took us some time to call it a genocide, but I could check the facts on that.
What are we doing specifically for the education of young girls in the camp? Has Canada specifically put money toward that?
Mr. Bobiash: Yes, we have. When I visited the camp last year, I attended an informal school funded through Canadian development assistance. Education in the refugee camps is one of our areas of focus.
Stephen Salewicz, Director General, International Humanitarian Assistance, Global Affairs Canada: Indeed, protection of children in the camps is an important issue for us. It takes the form of providing learning opportunities. Some of our partners indeed provide safe spaces for children to come during the day to receive attention for their learning needs.
The needs are enormous in the camps, of course. Scaling up the response early on really focused on building the shelters and establishing the services.
As we advance through this, our response will focus more and more on the question of education for children. It will be something we will be looking at closely from a humanitarian standpoint in the camps to integrate it into the host communities, which are also facing many challenges in terms of education.
Mr. Bobiash: One thing that struck me when I visited the camp was how poor the refugees were. When they moved to the Bangladesh refugee camp, I am sure for many of them it was the first time their kids could actually go to school or the first time they may have had contact with a medical clinic.
One of the humbling aspects of this tragedy is the level of poverty of the refugees.
Senator Ataullahjan: Is there any dialogue taking place with the Government of Myanmar? Are they feeling any effects, with the sanctions?
What I have seen so far, even from their leader Aung San Suu Kyi, is that she insisted on calling it “fake news” and laughing about the issue in India.
Why are they not getting the message that the world is watching? All of us have seen the horrible pictures of the murder and rape of the women. Yet, there seems to be this blankness that is coming from the leadership.
Whenever we’ve tried to engage them, as I tried last year when we were visiting, the response we always get is “No Rohingya.”
What is it? Surely they can’t be that, to use polite words, out of touch with reality.
Mr. Bobiash: I think there is a clear distinction between the public projection of the international face of the Myanmar government and its officials and their concerns privately.
Our information is that those targeted by sanctions or named individually worry about them and feel that they are impacted by them. Again, it’s mainly a difference between the public perception they want to project and their own personal concerns.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for your presentation. It was very helpful to have an update on what is going on.
As you mentioned, Bob Rae was appointed as the special envoy. I can’t imagine a better choice, with his compassion and knowledge, to go in there. As well, his testimony to us was very riveting and emotional.
In speaking to one of the people he asked, “What message do you want me to convey when I go back to Canada?” The gentleman said to him, “Please tell them that we are human.”
How do we do that? It is far, far away. We can watch it on the news, but it’s so desperate and so bad that people can compartmentalize and say, “It is not our problem; it is far away.”
How do we make people understand that each and every individual out of those one million Rohingya are mothers, fathers and children?
Mr. Bobiash: Having visited the camps, those are exactly the kinds of questions we asked. In response, we have to focus on questions drawing from that.
Is our assistance from Canada working? Are we making a difference in the daily lives of these people?
Again, it is heartening to see the work of Canadian volunteers, employees of NGOs, and Canadians in multilateral organizations working on the ground who often make great sacrifices to help these people.
The development assistance is focused on the most vulnerable. Canada is showing leadership in this respect. We are the ones who are pushing the Feminist International Development Policy which, in the case of the camps, results in very specific benefits and priorities for women, vulnerable people and young girls.
Senator Cordy: I am very pleased to see the work that Canada is doing in promoting the knowledge of the crisis and working through the UN.
As you said in your speech, Canada strongly supports the creation of an independent accountability mechanism and the extension of the fact-finding missions through the UN Human Rights Council. Canada is also advocating the UN Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. I am really glad that Minister Freeland and Minister Bibeau are doing that. I commend the government for the work they are doing.
Why hasn’t the UN reacted already? Why hasn’t it been referred to the International Criminal Court? What is the holdup at the UN? Why don’t we have a fact-finding mandate through the United Nations Human Rights Council?
Again, I am very pleased that Canada is taking a leadership role at the UN in promoting this. I am really glad for the finances that Canada is sending, which is important, and for the number of people who are on the ground from Canada; but surely the UN has responsibility. It should be something that is decided fairly quickly.
Mr. Bobiash: Let me say, first of all, that our government is really committed to playing an active role with multilateral organizations. That has been one of the priorities of the government since they were elected.
The United Nations organization is big, fast and very complicated. To work within it, you need to work gradually by building coalitions. Canada has been doing that. We are leading this international working group. We have about 20 countries in this group already.
To get movement within the UN, you have to have a bit of patience and work step by step to build these coalitions so that you can win your resolutions and you can prod certain elements of the organizations. We have been doing that quite effectively. We have also been successful in trying to lobby the Security Council to really push the Myanmar and refugee resolution issues.
In fact, the UN Security Council was briefed a few days ago on the 24 by the head of the human rights agency for refugees. They are being prodded, gradually, and I think we are seeing results in different ways.
Senator Cordy: I am glad Canada is doing the prodding.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Mr. Bobiash and your whole team, for being with us today. This is an issue of incredible importance for all Canadians, and certainly for us as senators. I have many questions but I will try to narrow it down to two at this point. I thank my colleagues for asking some that were on my mind.
I would like to know a bit more about the $300 million that was announced to go toward three years of assistance for the four core objectives you mentioned for Bangladesh and for Myanmar. What is directed toward Myanmar? How is that money being spent? What is being directed toward the camp? That is my first question.
I would also like to know more about the support for development projects to address the needs of the host communities in Bangladesh. I think that’s a really critical area. They are an incredibly generous host country, as you said, Mr. Bobiash, but it’s a country which already has many of its own challenges.
Those of us who have been working in international development for a very long time know the flip side of that. Bangladesh has an incredible track record in successful community development initiatives. I would love to know how those successful small and large organizations in Bangladesh are engaged in this.
Mr. Bobiash: You have rightly highlighted, senator, Canada’s successful relationship with the people and the Government of Bangladesh. Since its independence in 1971, Canada has been one of the lead donors in that country. We have made a real difference in development in Bangladesh. We have focused a lot of our development assistance on health care and education or basically on grassroots development. These results are manifest throughout the country of Bangladesh. It has risen from one of the poorest countries in the world to almost middle-income status in one generation, partly because of the policies the Government of Bangladesh has adopted and partly because of assistance from countries like Canada which have focused on the right areas of development.
Moving toward the Rohingya situation, you rightly point out that it is obviously a big challenge for a relatively poor country to welcome a million refugees in an area which is already one of the poorest regions of Bangladesh. We are cognizant of this in our development assistance policy. We realize that we have to accommodate and in some way compensate the Government of Bangladesh for having to support this influx of people on very short notice.
I was in Bangladesh about a year ago for annual consultations with their government. We have a very good rapport, and we discuss these exact issues. Perhaps I could get our development assistance people to give more of a breakdown of what we’re doing in the camp in Bangladesh and our development assistance program in Myanmar itself, which is another aspect of the question.
François Lafrenière, Director, Myanmar and Philippines Development, Global Affairs Canada: I will speak to development assistance. The total of $300 million over three years covers humanitarian assistance in Myanmar and Bangladesh. My friend Stephen Salewicz can speak to that. It also covers some development assistance in Myanmar and Bangladesh. A smaller amount is programmed by our peace support operations program.
All of the $300 million has not been programmed. We have three years, and we are six months into the three-year period.
In Bangladesh, the focus or emphasis for the portion of the $300 million used for development assistance is to work with the host communities that are severely impacted by the influx of refugees.
There are two aspects to it. They have their own needs, and so far the focus has been on health and education for host communities. There is also the relationships or the social cohesion between the host communities and the refugees themselves. Programming is being developed around that.
There is a fine balance between the perceptions of delivering a lot to the refugees and the host communities and not on how they should be working together. These people live together. Some host communities have been harbouring refugees for a long time prior to this wave. There is an upcoming election in Bangladesh, so these are sensitive topics.
On the Bangladesh side, I would say health and education for the host communities, and the relationship between the refugees and the host communities themselves.
In the area of development assistance we are working on sexual health and rights, which are big issues, in the camps, in the host communities and in Myanmar. We are implementing programming in Rakhine and in other states affected by conflict that deals with women affected by crimes and how to empower them to change that very prevalent impact of conflicts. Conflicts always cause sexual and rights issues for women. We know that it is not only by standing armies but by anybody fighting in wars.
In Myanmar, in Rakhine State, we are developing options for another type of social cohesion. The relationship is not good between the two communities. It has been negatively impacted by a lot of social media propaganda on both sides. It creates, even for the more neutral Rakhine Buddhist or the more neutral Rohingya, a sense of fear when interacting with each other. Social cohesion programming is being developed there as well, always with a focus on women and girls as beneficiaries and as actors. We have to look at both sides of the equation. Women and girls have special needs but can also play a special role.
Having been in Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine State, I would say probably the most courageous stakeholders in these organizations, in terms of social cohesion in Rakhine, are women’s organizations. It is a risky business to undertake social cohesion work and to interact with the opposing community.
I will stop there for now.
Mr. Salewicz: Perhaps I could give you a brief update on the humanitarian situation. As my colleague indicated, we are working in Myanmar. Approximately $12.3 million of the $66 million we identified in the presentation today to the response for Myanmar. Much of those resources are going to Rakhine State.
There are few options for us in terms of partners. Both access to deliver assistance and access to assess the situation, as you well know, are major challenges. That continues to be a point of advocacy for the government. The challenges are immense in Rakhine. We continue to focus on advocating for access and for providing assistance.
In Bangladesh, we have a very comprehensive program that covers many sectors. At the outset it looked at focusing on establishing the camps. We worked very closely with a range of organizations within the UN, within the international NGO community, and with the Red Cross.
We also had a very unique partnership with BRAC, a Bangladesh NGO, where we can harness their local knowledge and capacity to assist in the response. They were an effective partner for us early on in the crisis.
In terms of the nature of our response and picking up on what my colleagues have said, a real focus from the Canadian government perspective is putting the Feminist International Assistance Policy into practice.
What does it look like on the ground? How do we actually operationalize what is a very ambitious policy? We have seen a lot of success with that in Bangladesh. It weaves an approach focused on the different needs of women and girls throughout the design and implementation of the programming. We also target specific programming for women and girls in the context of the camps. That includes psychosocial counselling for survivors of SGBV or sexual and gender-based violence, medical care for survivors, prevention of SGBV and so on. We have a comprehensive program that allows us to respond to their needs.
We also look at empowerment. This is a traditional society where women didn’t have a lot of authority. Trying to bring them into the decision-making process around program design and delivery is very important for us and a key part of our approach.
Senator Ataullahjan: We are hearing of empowering women. We are hearing of reports of rape, sexual violence and sexual slavery. When we initially started the study, we heard concern being expressed for all the women in a traditional Muslim society who had been raped and the children who would be born out of rape.
Do we have any kind of numbers for those? Is anyone looking at that? You visited the camps. Is there any evidence? I know it is a huge concern. While we are talking about that, we also heard about sexual traffickers moving in. It is a huge problem, the way these women are being exploited sexually. Did you see anything?
Mr. Bobiash: When I personally visited the camp and talked to the refugees one on one or in small groups, it was clear that the amount of sexual violence used by Myanmar military to scare them and get them out of Myanmar was prevalent. Everybody I talked to seemed to have the same story of horrific sexual harassment within their own country.
In terms of follow-up in the camp, I believe there are some NGOs doing work on the subject of children being born because of the rapes, et cetera, within the camps. I am not aware of any Canadian investigation of this issue.
Mr. Lafrenière: I know the numbers are being monitored. Of course you understand that some women will not say whether the birth of the child is a result of a rape. A number of births are happening in large numbers in the camps. Maybe Stephen Salewicz can add to this afterward.
We can speculate. Some NGOs are trying to assess the proportion that could be from rapes committed in Myanmar. Some are not the result of rape. Some women are with their husbands.
There are also some incidents of rape in the camps. That is for the future. It is not on the same scale, but it is happening because it is a large camp with not a lot of security at night. Things do happen.
I know that a number of NGOs and humanitarian partners working in the camp are seized with this and are trying to help these women by creating safe spaces, a referral system and even separate food ration queues for women. That is another issue. Maybe I will ask Stephen Salewicz to add how it is handled in the camps.
I don’t have a number to share with you, but I know some people are trying to assess these numbers.
Senator Ataullahjan: What I was talking about was when they were fleeing Myanmar. Married women have children and nobody knows if they are children of rape, but we have cases of young girls and young women who were not married but were raped and will be giving or have given birth. That is what I wanted to clarify. As well, the human traffickers have moved in.
Mr. Salewicz: The fact that the international community is there in force through the UN, Red Cross and the NGOs gives us an opportunity to actually gauge that impact. I don’t think we’ve seen the evidence written up to date, but there is certainly evidence being gathered to that effect.
Indeed, responding to the impact of sexual violence in Myanmar as people come into Bangladesh is a focus of our programming in the camp. As I mentioned already, much of our programming is comprehensive psychosocial support to deal with the psychological trauma. As important or more important is the medical health care we provide through our partners that are active in the camp and spend a lot of time advocating or informing individuals about the services that exist.
Part of the challenges is going out and making sure that women know the services exist. It’s a huge camp, and providing information about medical care is an element of that. We have focused significantly on sexual and reproductive health care through our programming.
Another element is looking at those safe spaces and providing the ability for women to come in and access referral services and additional information on how to prevent sexual violence within their own family settings.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for being here, for your good work and for providing us with a lot of information.
When the Honourable Bob Rae came here, I remember that he was clearly affected by his visit there and how difficult it was. He really gave us a glimpse into what life was like there.
As Senator Cordy said, sometimes when we are away from it, we see things on TV and we’re not attached to it. It is always helpful for us to hear from those who have visited there.
I am glad you talked about the sexual psychosocial counselling, Mr. Salewicz, and how that is available. Those affected are able to access counselling, but I am wondering about those who are working with people. It must be very heavy work for humanitarian workers.
Are they able to access counselling? Are they able to get some support? What are some of the challenges for them to keep working with the people? There are many layers. We have issues of education, food, clothing and shelter, but how do they get support as they are working there?
Mr. Salewicz: Yes, that’s a very good question because sometimes we forget about the many individuals working for these organizations who are extremely affected by what they see on a daily basis. It is extremely challenging for them.
We work with some of the largest and most trusted organizations that have long experience in working in these conditions. They have set up their own protocols for preparation and training in advance and supporting them post-deployment with their own counselling services.
There are also opportunities for rest and relaxation away from the camps during the deployments to re-energize and get back on an even keel. The impact on individuals and on humanitarians responding is significant.
Senator Hartling: Do you think there are enough supports for the people who are actually affected, like counselling and interventions for the refugees who are living there?
Mr. Salewicz: Do you mean in terms of the population of the Rohingya?
Senator Hartling: Yes. Do you think there is enough?
Mr. Salewicz: As I said, a million people who showed up. Creating a community with the wide range of services required in a year is impossible. We have seen great progress happening on the ground. Basic needs are being met, as are psychosocial care and quite sophisticated health care needs. Now we are seeing the level of sophistication of the response increasing. We are also seeing the development actors that can actually look at the local services like education and health care. They are the providers that can address more systematically and sustainably the kinds of needs that need to be addressed.
Things have improved. Are the services up to where they need to be, to reach everyone? Definitely not, but they have made great progress.
Mr. Bobiash: You asked about whether we were adequately supporting the people working in the camp.
What struck me when I visited and chatted with people working for UN organizations and NGOs was that most of them were very experienced and have worked in similar kinds of crises, whether refugee camps or natural disasters, in other parts of the world such as the Middle East, Latin America, et cetera. Many of them are experienced in this kind of work, so perhaps it is a little less shocking for them.
I was struck by how international the community was. Literally people from all over the world who have worked on one crisis or another bring their expertise and experience to bear.
Senator Hartling: You went there. Were you debriefed when you got back? How did it work for you?
Mr. Bobiash: In addition to a regular debriefing in our department, we did a bit of social media. I must say personally that it is very traumatic when you see a million people living on basically a few acres.
Also what struck me was how the land and the vegetation had been completely denuded. The small forests and grass were all gone. There were grey hills stacked with tents and people literally living side by side each other. It was a horrendous experience for these people.
Rhonda Gossen, Senior Policy Advisor, South Asia Division, Global Affairs Canada: I was seven months in Cox’s Bazar on a deployment with the UN prior to coming into this job. I didn’t work as a first responder in the camp. I was mainly helping to raise funds, doing program strategies and so on. It was very exhausting, I have to say, and quite traumatizing. I was absolutely exhausted coming back.
I was offered some psychological counselling upon my exit. They did follow up, which was very nice. There are more counsellors there now. As I was leaving, there were more being deployed to work with humanitarian workers. You could see the response happening. The R&R policy increased, so people are out every eight weeks for a week, which is absolutely critical.
Senator Hartling: It must be difficult for people here, when you come back home, to understand what you have been through.
The Chair: Mr. Bobiash, you mentioned that there will be an election in 2020, which is not far away.
Is Canada involved in assisting Myanmar in any way in planning for that election in terms of thinking about things around accountability and safety for women and girls who may want to vote? Could you tell us if there is any involvement with that, please?
Mr. Bobiash: As background, our development assistance program in Myanmar for many years has always had a strong governance component. We have to remember that this is a government that has traditionally been a military dictatorship. It has been transitioning over the last five to ten years toward democracy. Our development assistance has reflected our interest in supporting that transition.
One of our biggest development assistance projects in Myanmar has been to promote the concept of federalism. We have provided a lot of technical assistance, training and professional advice on how federalism can be strengthened in that country. We have been working through the Forum of Federations here in Ottawa to help implement that project.
As you know, throughout the world we regularly support elections through sending electoral observers and monitoring. I will ask our development assistance people if they have any more background on support for the upcoming election.
Mr. Lafrenière: At present, there is no plan to support the election itself or funding the Government of Myanmar to run its election.
To add to what Mr. Bobiash said about how the program is supported, federalism is one issue. Just to give you a scale, thousands of people have been trained on what federalism could be and should be: civil servants, NGOs and ethnic minorities and mainstream Bamar.
Up to three years ago the word “federalism” was not to be used in Myanmar and meant separatism. It’s now a mainstream word that everybody uses, even in the military. Federalism is there.
We also have two large programs that work at supporting civil society in Myanmar. We support up to about 80 local civil society organizations in Myanmar. Most of them are women’s organizations or ethnic minority organizations, with a few others in health. Because there are elections at different levels, we know that elections and democracy are parts of the work of the NGOs.
As in the last election, we are expecting a strong participation of women and of ethnic minorities in the 2020 election. Perhaps the outcomes will be different, but that is not for me to speculate. The last election saw a landslide of the NLD Party that is in power now and the marginalization of a lot of the smaller ethnic parties that did not receive a lot of votes. We will see what happens in the next election.
A number of initiatives support the meaningful participation of people who would usually be excluded from processes such as women and ethnic minorities. We will consider support for the process itself and the election in due course.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to ask my question which requires a yes or no answer.
Bob Rae appeared before us. Senator Cordy spoke highly of him. I can’t thank him enough, especially for the emotion he showed. He has done an incredible job.
In his final report he asked that the Government of Canada provide $600 million over four years. Could you confirm for me if that is the amount we have committed to?
Mr. Bobiash: The figure we committed to was $300 million. I know in his report he did say $600 million in development assistance, and that includes humanitarian.
Senator Cordy: Does it include everything?
Mr. Bobiash: Yes.
Senator Ataullahjan: We have committed to half of what he asked for.
Mr. Bobiash: Correct.
The Chair: My apologies, senators, but we do not have time for a second round because we have another panel coming in.
I thank our first panel for providing an update on the government’s response to the plight of the Rohingya refugees.
For our next panel, we welcome Raïss Tinmaung from the Rohingya Human Rights Network. He is a Rohingya from Toronto. Although he is an aerospace systems engineer by profession, his passion lies in development work on the ground. He has lived and volunteered in long-term development projects in South America, the Caribbean, Southern Africa and the Middle East. At the Rohingya Human Rights Network, Raïss is the Canadian liaison for the documentation efforts at the refugee camp.
He is accompanied by Fareed Khan, Director of Advocacy and Media Relations for the Rohingya Human Rights Network.
Professor Payam Akhavan will speak after we have heard from the Rohingya Human Rights Network.
Mr. Tinmaung, the floor is yours.
Raïss Tinmaung, Director, Overseas Projects, Rohingya Human Rights Network, as an individual: Thank you very much, madam.
[Translation]
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for inviting me to share what I observed in the refugee camps in Bangladesh, where my people are living, as well as what distant relatives living in Burma recently told me.
[English]
I am a Rohingya. My parents are from Zolda Khana, a village outside of modern day Sittwe, that was burned to the ground in the 2012 massacre. I still have relatives living near Sittwe and in Maungdaw township in northwestern Rakhine. I talk to them from time to time, and I will share with you some of their words in my address.
Earlier this year I visited the refugee camps where I spent one month meeting with my people, listening to and recording their stories.
[Translation]
The interviews were part of my volunteer work through the University of Southern California. The Montreal Holocaust Museum recommended me to the university.
[English]
We interviewed nearly 100 men and women from 15 different villages burned to the ground. I will share with you what I saw and heard during that one month of volunteering at the camp, and what my people continue to update me on almost a daily basis from the refugee camps.
[Translation]
I’ll start with the villages in Myanmar.
[English]
Ever since the massacre of 2017, our efforts of sending aid to the villages through informal family channels have been severely restricted. The villages that have survived are under constant surveillance, and the atmosphere of fear prevails everywhere. The curfews continue to remain in effect.
For example, my uncle in Maungdaw told me not long ago:
The night prayer ended late, for which everyone stayed inside the mosque stayed till next morning. If we were to go out, we would be arrested and jailed because the Rohingya are not supposed to be out in the streets after 10 p.m.
It is 8 p.m. in other places like Buthidaung and the villages outside of Maungdaw.
The Rohingya children have segregated education at public schools, and going to college is an impossibility.
Another relative in Buthidaung said:
Movement from one village to another is extremely restricted. Every couple of miles there are checkpoints where you need to pay 5,000 kyats or so, else you get arrested.
She added that they cannot go to see a doctor. They are being coerced to take NVCs or National Verification Cards on which they are forced to be identified as Bengalis. Then she added:
. . . we get threats that their houses will also be burned someday.
I also have some family members in Yangon who forget about calling themselves Rohingya. They don’t even use the word Rohingya out of fear. They tell me about the general atmosphere of fear that the Muslims live in, amidst the growth of nationalism and popular support of the military and the extremist Buddhist leaders.
[Translation]
The last time I visited the refugee camps in Bangladesh, I noticed an improvement in the living conditions vis-à-vis what I had seen before. I observed numerous shelters, wells, latrines, food distribution centres, hospitals and the like. Projects funded by the Canadian government were also quite visible, so I really want to thank you for your contribution and the assistance you have given my people.
[English]
The interviews were very difficult and painful. I remember a nine-year-old boy on crutches. He was shot when he was running away. He couldn’t get treatment on time, so his left leg had to be amputated.
I interviewed a gentleman who lost his child, uncle, brothers, sisters and aunt while running through an open field with other villagers to take refuge in the jungle because their village was burning.
I interviewed a man who lost his nine-month pregnant wife and couldn’t even bury her because he was running for his life.
I interviewed a medic who could not stop crying, saying that he was suicidal because he can’t forgive himself for not being able to do anything while he saw his neighbour’s daughter being held by four men and raped by several others one after the other.
I also remember interviewing a Maulana, a religious cleric, who at the end of his interview took out a piece of paper from which he was reading names. Then he turned around and he couldn’t read anymore. After a few tears, he said that they were all his students at the madrasa there under the age of 13.
Fast forward to what is happening at the camp today, as I know from my Rohingya colleagues on the ground with whom I correspond on at least a weekly basis, if not on a daily basis on some occasions.
Mohammad Shakir from Nayapara refugee camp is in charge of our schools and vocational projects and had this to say:
There are hundreds of shelters destroyed from the monsoon and landslides. There are hygiene issues in the camps. Men have no work. There is desperation, human trafficking, drug trade, and a rise in numbers of men reverting towards extremism. There is a lack of adequate treatment provided by the clinics, and most schools do not offer proper education to the children — it seems more like an aid consumption money business.
Another one of my colleagues at the refugee camp wrote in correspondence yesterday:
The current situation is worrisome because the Bangladeshi government is trying to deport 100,000 people into the island of Bhashan Char — people are afraid.
She added:
The UNHCR is providing smart cards to identify the refugees, but nowhere in the card does it say Rohingya on it. Repatriation is also looming on them. It is that Memorandum of Understanding signed some time ago, which also did not even mention the word Rohingya on it.
The Bangladeshi political situation in anticipation of the elections is also scary — journalists have restricted access to the camps, several foreign doctors delegations have been denied access. It is very restricted.
I was corresponding with some of these doctors who went from Calgary, Alberta, and Burlington, Ontario, and they were denied access.
To conclude this debrief, I would like to point out two key messages.
First, the condition at the refugee camps is deteriorating by the day. There are no opportunities for work or study for the youth. We have sex trafficking, drug trade, restricted access to journalists and doctors, and now a fear of deportation to an island or, even worse, repatriation to Myanmar.
How can we even have the slightest idea of repatriation to Myanmar when we know that genocide is still happening there? Are we to repeat sending our Jewish brothers and sisters back to the Nazis again, or watch as busloads of Bosnians are sent to the Serbs?
Second, the Rohingya in Myanmar still remain in a state of fear, isolation, discrimination and disenfranchisement. The IDP camps outside of Sittwe where my family comes from still prevail. The sentiment on the streets of Yangon is pro-government and pro-military. The same government that ordered Reuters journalists to seven years in jail is the same government that continues to bomb Kachin, Karen, Shan and Chin villages. The popular support for that same government is still out there.
We need to ask ourselves these questions. How has our policy, and the policies of our allies worked toward stopping the Government of Myanmar from continuing the genocide on its own people? How can our policy help make ordinary Rohingya, who are dwindling in refugee camps, return to their homelands with protection, dignity, citizenship and the basic recognition of being a human and not an insect or a flea or a dog, as we are still known?
The Chair: Thank you very much for your evidence today.
Our second panellist is Professor Payam Akhavan, who will be taking up his duties on January 1 as professor of international law at McGill University.
He has worked as a human rights lawyer in Bosnia, Rwanda and other conflict zones around the world.
In 2017, he delivered the CBC Massey Lectures, published as In Search of a Better World: A Human Rights Odyssey, which became a bestselling non-fiction book in Canada.
In June 2018, he visited the Rohingya camp in Bangladesh in connection with potential investigations against the Myanmar leadership by the International Criminal Court.
Professor Akhavan, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Payam Akhavan, Professor, International Law, McGill University, as an individual: Thank you very much. Honourable committee members, I want to start by thanking you for this opportunity. It’s a tremendous honour to be able to share my experience around the struggle for justice for the Rohingya.
[English]
I must disclose at the beginning that I serve as counsel to the Government of Bangladesh in respect of proceedings before the International Criminal Court, but that anything I say today will be said in my personal capacity as a scholar and practitioner of international criminal law. I do not speak on behalf of the Government of Bangladesh today. Of course, the submissions of Bangladesh to the International Criminal Court have been and remain confidential.
I went to Kutupalong in June of this year. As you appreciate, what was two years ago a refuge for wild elephants has become the biggest refugee camp in the world. An estimated 700,000 people are gathered in what can only be described as an ocean of misery.
As my colleague explained, it doesn’t take long before one speaks to the survivors to appreciate the immense gravity of the suffering and horrors that they have witnessed.
Like my colleague, I saw many children with missing limbs and with bullet wounds. I met a group of women who told me harrowing stories, with one describing how her infant was thrown in the fire by the notorious Tatmadaw, the Myanmar military. The women back then were mostly in the third trimester of their pregnancies. Given the fact that the husbands of most of them had been killed, it didn’t take long to realize that most of them had in fact become pregnant as a result of rape. As we speak here today, those same women have infants in their arms somewhere in Kutupalong camp.
It is very difficult and humbling, sitting before the witnesses, to promise them anything that could make their horrible circumstances better. One thing I heard again and again is that they wanted their stories to be told. They wanted the world to know what had happened to them. They wanted recognition for their suffering. I appreciate that the Government of Canada, the House of Commons in particular, has adopted a resolution recognizing what has happened as genocide. Even more important, is the move toward some form of accountability to ensure that those committing these crimes appreciate that a cost will be exacted.
The only realistic basis for any accountability is the International Criminal Court, not least because the courts of Myanmar have the obligation under international law to bring justice to the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and genocide. The chances of that happening are slim to none, not least because of the ethnic cleansing campaign is itself the policy of the leadership of the Myanmar government.
We began some time ago to think about how the International Criminal Court could exercise jurisdiction given the fact that Myanmar is not a state party. As we all know, in international law a court does not automatically have jurisdiction unless there is consent to be bound by the competence of that court.
In previous instances, in regard to Sudan in 2005 and Libya in 2011, the UN Security Council had adopted the Chapter VII binding resolutions referring matters to the court. Given the politics of the Security Council and the veto which is available to the permanent members, the chances of that happening are non-existent.
The basis for the jurisdiction of the court, if any, would be the territory of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a state party to the ICC statute, and to the extent that crimes occur on its territory, the court would have jurisdiction.
Thus emerged the so-called “deportation theory”: While most of the crimes, such as the murders, the rapes, the tortures, and the wanton destruction of villages occurred on the territory of Myanmar, there is an intent in fact to deport the Rohingya population across the border into Bangladesh. This means that the crime of deportation begins in the territory of Myanmar but is completed on the territory of Bangladesh.
On that basis, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in April of this year requested what is in effect an advisory opinion from the International Criminal Court to determine whether the court had jurisdiction over those crimes prior to the initiation of an investigation.
Following extensive pleadings which involved a confidential submission by the Government of Bangladesh, submissions by a number of non-governmental organizations including my wonderful colleagues who are part of the Canadian Partnership for International Justice, and a large group of Canadian scholars and activists, I am pleased to say that the court ruled on September 6 of this year that it did in fact have jurisdiction in respect of those crimes.
What is remarkable is that the Pre-Trial Chamber of the court which issued that opinion called on the prosecutor to expedite a preliminary examination phase, to take place under the rules of the ICC prior to the initiation of a formal investigation.
It is important to note that deportation is only one slice of the many crimes that have been committed. It is unfortunate that the court cannot enjoy general jurisdiction. I would simply point out that the crime of deportation also includes coercive acts such as murder and sexual violence which have caused the forcible displacement. It is possible, through deportation, to encompass a broad range of violence against the Rohingya.
I will conclude by saying that obviously there is a great distance between the court initiating investigations and issuing arrest warrants, including potentially against leading members of the Tatmadaw at the highest levels of its leadership. In an unprecedented move in August of this year, the international fact-finding mission of the United Nations Human Rights Council named six senior officials of the Tatmadaw who are very likely to be targets of ICC investigations. There is a great distance between issuing arrest warrants and actually ensuring that those individuals are surrendered to the court in The Hague.
My experience, having served with the UN tribunal in The Hague, is that while we say that justice delayed is justice denied, in this instance justice delayed is justice delivered. International criminal justice always has to have a long-term perspective because those who are in power and untouchable today may fall from grace tomorrow. It is absolutely essential that the international community place the question of individual criminal accountability at the centre of its relations with Myanmar and ensure there is sustained pressure so that over time the prospects of arrest and prosecution become more realistic.
A second point to bear in mind is that there is still almost half a million Rohingya in Myanmar. As my colleague said earlier, there must be a cost attached to these crimes. There are some indications that the investigation by the International Criminal Court could potentially have a deterrent effect. At least, it will make it more difficult and costly for Myanmar to do with roughly half a million Rohingya what it has already done with the almost one million who now find themselves in the refugee camps of Bangladesh.
Finally, even if we were not able to achieve some strict utilitarian objective, it is important to bear in mind that some measure of justice, however inadequate, is essential for the healing of the victims. That in itself is a good enough reason in my view to support proceedings before the International Criminal Court.
I will end my comments there and thank you very much for focusing on this important question.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ataullahjan: As most of you must be aware, I have been involved in this issue since 2012. I raised the issue with the Burmese delegation the first time they were visiting Quebec in 2012 for the IPU. Last year, a political spokesperson for Aung San Suu Kyi refused to answer any questions on the Rohingya. In fact he would say, “No Rohingya.”
Let me ask you a question that I have been asked consistently since this crisis started. I want to see if you can answer it because I couldn’t answer it: “Why is the world not paying attention? Why is the world reacting so slowly? Is it because we are Muslim? Is it because we have brown skin?” I really didn’t have an answer.
There was a hesitancy in the world to even call it genocide. We could see the pictures that were coming out. We could see the videos of what was coming out. We heard stories of the women being raped. When I asked the government official before you about children being born out of rape, he sort of said, “Yes, but some of them are married.”
Why the hesitancy? Why are we hesitating to call it what it is? There has been massacring. Women have been used. There has been sexual violence. They have been held as slaves. Why?
I can’t answer that question when I am asked. Maybe you can give me an answer to that.
Mr. Tinmaung: I don’t have an answer either. As much as when the house passed the motion and adopted it unanimously, it was a big surprise and relief for me.
It shouldn’t be like that. It has happened for half a century. I took the same question to my people at the camps that I interviewed, and they had nothing but tears. They were like, “Are we not human beings?” I don’t have an answer either.
Fareed Khan, Director, Advocacy and Media Relations, Rohingya Human Rights Network: I am not sure if this is an answer but it might give insight. The international world order that was created after World War II was based on the experience of the people, what they experienced in World War II, what they witnessed, and the horrors that occurred.
That generation is pretty much disappearing. They were the constant touchstone and reminders of human depravity, the low that human depravity can sink to. It seems that for our political leaders today, not just in Canada but anywhere in the western world, those people are no longer there to be reminders. There are very few left, but the voices that speak out are not listened to.
Instead, we have governments looking at issues of human rights and defence of the weakest in the world from the perspective of how this will affect us economically and what this means for trade.
In the case of Myanmar, Canada doesn’t have any huge economic interests in Myanmar. We are ideally placed to be raising this issue in international fora and being a loud voice. Canadian leaders of not just our current government but of governments of the past have gone on the world stage for decades, talking about our commitment to human rights.
It is very easy to stand up in front of a camera and a microphone and condemn atrocities being committed by a government or individuals. Frankly, words are cheap. It is when you take action or you put action behind those words that you really achieve results. I will leave it at that.
Senator Ataullahjan: Talking about the island of Bhashan Char, I was in Bangladesh twice last year and we brought up that issue with the foreign minister. At that time there was talk of moving the refugees to that island. The feeling was that island was sinking.
With the rains coming, why would you put refugees on an island which was sinking and was going to be flooded during monsoons? Did they go ahead and still move refugees there?
Mr. Tinmaung: From my correspondence just yesterday and the day before, after I got notice of the request to appear, I updated all my notes.
They haven’t started the deportation yet, but it’s imminent. When you first visited, senator, at that time they were initiating talks and they were probably doing construction, but by now construction is done. That is a fact. It is even in the media. They are very likely to forcibly deport as they did back in the 1980s and 1990s, but at that time it was deporting to Myanmar or repatriation to Myanmar.
Why would they do that? I will make a reference to some interviews that I did and translated with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights recently. The Rohingya community here initiating an exhibit at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. People who are now here are talking about some of them who came back and were repatriated. They witnessed people being beaten and forced to go.
There is this sentiment of unwantedness with a million people who are now on their lands. They are jobless. They cannot educate them. They do not even give them refugee status because they would be obliged to give them some services if they did.
It creates all these problems of extremism and trafficking. Sex trafficking has been there for a long time. One of the programs that we run at the refugee camps in our humanitarian work is to go from locality to locality within a given camp to tell women, especially, to stay away from someone who tells them they can make money by going to Dhaka, because they will find themselves in a brothel.
This has happened in the past and is already happening again. The deportation is related to that. With all these problems with trafficking, people start saying we have to get rid of these people and put them away somewhere else. There is an incentive for that construction. It is the construction companies that made money out of the construction on Bhashan Char. That money is spent. It is done and now it is just to get rid of the 100,000 people and perhaps another 100,000 elsewhere, and so forth.
Senator Cordy: Senator Ataullahjan brought forward a motion in the Senate that the Rohingya crisis was a genocide, which passed, also.
Thank you for the work you are doing. Mr. Tinmaung. You have gone into the camps. How challenging was it for you to be allowed into the camps? Did you encounter any problems to get in?
Mr. Tinmaung: I will share with you a little story. The camps have all these checkpoints before you get in, and I am sure Professor Akhavan would be able to add to that. If you are in a nice car and if you are surrounded by foreigners, then you get inside easily. If you are on a tuk-tuk or a rickshaw, then you are stopped and checked. If you are Rohingya, you are out.
It happened to me once because I am a Rohingya. As an aid worker who has backpacked in Southern Africa and volunteered on the coast of Ecuador after the earthquake, I go low key. One time I was on this tuk-tuk, and they stopped me and took me out. I try to make my Rohingya as close to what it should be as possible. They said, “All right,” and they are taking me. Then I start speaking English, and I am back on my transport and gone.
It is challenging, certainly, to get to and from, if that is what you’re asking me. If you are surrounded by a convoy or if you are in a nice vehicle, you could very well be a Bangladeshi NGO. If you are Bangladeshi, it is indicated by your being in a car, as opposed to them or us who are supposed to be inside the camps and not coming out.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Akhavan, what were your challenges?
Mr. Akhavan: I was part of a government delegation so I would not have encountered any of that. We need to see this in the proper context. There are now almost one million Rohingya refugees in what is the most densely populated country in the world. It is a very difficult circumstance.
When I compare it with the xenophobia we are witnessing in our part of the world, whatever fault one can put at the door of the Bangladeshi government, they have on the whole been quite receptive and generous.
More can be done, but the world community cannot expect Bangladesh to deal single-handedly with one million refugees. It simply cannot.
Before the international agencies arrived and when the people were coming over the border, I was astonished to see how the Bangladeshi border guard and the local farmers shared their food and their homes with many of the refugees. That would put to shame the attitude that we have about immigrants and refugees.
My heart goes out to my colleague because it is really hell to be in Kutupalong and see not just the physical circumstances but what these people have survived. They are dealing with emotional trauma and very difficult circumstances.
I was there just before the monsoon season. It was foreseeable that there would be mudslides and people would die. It was evident, but what can you do?
The chances that any significant proportion of this population will go back to Myanmar are slim to none, absent significant pressure on Myanmar, including some sort of UN presence in Rakhine State, which is not going to happen.
We have to figure out a way of dealing with one million people who, as my colleague explained, are desperate and angry. There is a fear of radicalization. Many of them were telling me, “We want an education. We are just sitting here. We have no opportunities to work or to become educated.”
It’s a complex issue. There needs to be a long-term plan and burden sharing, frankly speaking, about how to deal with a million people that cannot remain indefinitely in the middle of a refuge where there are wild elephants roaming around.
Senator Cordy: We heard from our government officials earlier about the importance of social cohesion between the host community of Bangladesh and the refugees.
When you’re talking about a million refugees, I was very pleased to be part of two groups that brought in Syrian refugees to Nova Scotia, but there were people complaining about the small numbers of Syrian refugees that we brought in. I can’t imagine a million.
How do we work with the Government of Bangladesh and with the Rohingya to develop social cohesion? You spoke about how accepting the Bangladeshi people are, but there is an upcoming election and we never know what happens after an election.
How do we build that social cohesion? I think you said earlier that this appears to be a long-term crisis, unfortunately.
Mr. Akhavan: Perhaps I can make a brief comment and my colleague can add what he wishes. The kind of xenophobic sentiments we are witnessing in our part of the world is virtually absent in Bangladeshi politics.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina personally visited Kutupalong and publicized very visibly the image of her with the refugee children. One sees these posters everywhere, and one can be cynical and say it is propaganda; but that is the message being conveyed is that these people are desperate and wounded, and we must care for them.
Senator Cordy: That is propaganda, I have to say.
Mr. Akhavan: Exactly, but it is true that over time the tide can turn as the problems of desperate people proliferate. They need jobs. They are going to be trafficked. There is drug trafficking and all the other things you mentioned. That is why we need to have a long-term strategy now on how to deal with a million people.
I also reassure my colleague that in my conversations with government officials, the International Organization for Migration and others, I very much doubt that there would be any kind of forcible repatriation. That is certainly the sense that I have been given.
While the public posture is that they are negotiating repatriation, when you talk to anybody off the record nobody believes that it will happen. At best, a small trickle of people will go back. Everyone is dealing with a reality that these million people are never going to return.
Mr. Tinmaung: Thank you, Professor Akhavan, especially for the last note that you mentioned.
It is relieving but only time will tell, from what I have heard and experienced while I visited the camps numerous times about sentiment on the ground. That’s based on what people have experienced in the past, in the 1990s when repatriation happened and in the end of the 1970s when it happened as well.
There were people who were born and brought up in the camps, as a matter of fact. The Canadian Museum of Human Rights interviewed a person from Quebec City. She was born and brought up in refugee camps. People from the 1970s and the 1990s, especially, have horror stories of forced repatriation. Hence the apprehension.
What can be done in the long term? Again, I am echoing what is on the ground, and I will let my colleague Fareed Kahn add it. To begin with, there are children, women, youth and men in the million people. Men have witnessed other men who have been forced to disappear, tortured, slaughtered, and all of that. If such a population is left anywhere without activity or any kind of empowerment, it is natural that they will revert to avenues which you and I do not want to see in a civilized society.
The youth, let’s say my brothers and sisters who are young, cannot get education. Education is a basic human right. Education is allowed in the camps in Dadaab, in Haiti where I volunteered, in Turkey, in Lebanon and elsewhere.
Why is education not allowed in the camps? When I visited it in 2015, the law was until Grade 5. After Grade 5 one cannot be educated. Now it has been extended to Grade 8. This is just one example of the deprivation that they are subjected to.
Why are men not allowed to work even at a lower rate? There is human capital there. There is the potential for the Bangladeshi economy to grow from that human capital. Why are those men and women not utilized?
Perhaps you still want to confine them within the boundaries of southeastern Bangladesh. Fair enough. You can keep them in that confined area, but you can put them into useful work. They’re not allowed to work. Hence they’re reverting to drug trafficking. Do you see?
There is talk about these basic things. I collaborate with the Bangladeshi NGOs. Bangladesh is very well known for their garment industry, so why can’t a garment factory be built? If some of these men and women could be employed, the frustration and all the bad things they get into would be off their minds. For God’s sake, why can’t the kids study? It’s just education. These things can be definitely worked on moving forward.
If foreign governments that have trade relations with Bangladesh are capable of influencing their policies, it will go a long way.
Mr. Khan: You refer to social cohesion and ask what we can for social cohesion in Bangladeshi society. The generosity they have displayed shows a level of social cohesion. However, part of that comes from the fact that there is an expectation these people will not be there permanently or that these people will not eventually be absorbed into Bangladeshi society and take jobs away from the Bangladeshis.
If we are to try and promote social cohesion as a nation, it should be through an avenue where we can at least give hope that there will be change down the road.
I heard some of the previous presentation, and a lot of the focus was on the issue of the refugee camps and what we can do to help the refugees. If you talk to the refugees, they’re looking at being in the camps for a while, but the vast majority of them want to go home. They want to go back to the lands they were expelled from. That is their desire. There is not this overwhelming desire to be resettled in other parts of the world.
Not only that, but the situation of the refugees in the camps is very different from the Syrian refugees that you referenced. A lot of the Syrian refugees were business owners and professionals. They were integrated into society, whereas the Rohingya refugees were basically excluded from society, excluded from all those things that are normal for people in society.
If we are to move forward and give them hope, we need to follow the path of individual accountability through the Rome Statute of the ICC, as we called for in an open letter released back in mid-September. The Government of Canada as a signatory to the UN Genocide Convention needs to invoke that convention, so that the switches can start tripping once that happens. It is not just individuals that are held accountable, but the State of Myanmar itself is held accountable. That was the very reason why the UN Genocide Convention was drafted and established. Canada is a state party to that, and so is Myanmar.
We can use the levers available through that to try to give them hope that we will hold accountable those who did this to you. That would mean that Bangladesh would see it may not happen immediately but that eventually down the road we would reach a point where the Rohingya could return to their homes, get citizenship and be able to live in peace.
Senator Coyle: I thank all of you for your very informative presentations. My question is actually for all of you. Your last statement, Mr. Khan, is a good segue to my question.
As you saw before you appeared, we had representatives of Global Affairs Canada. We heard some very sincere, informative and encouraging comments from our government in response to the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar and in the Bangladesh camp.
I would like to hear from your various perspectives what your read is on what Canada is doing. Mr. Tinmaung, you weren’t speaking about Canada, but you talked about the aid money consumption business being a dominant sense of what was actually happening in the camp as opposed to what was required in the camp.
I would like to hear where you think Canada is in terms of our development assistance, in terms of our humanitarian assistance in the camp, and in what we are providing in Myanmar. What are some of our levers with the UN Genocide Convention that you referred to, the long-term more patient ICC potential, and sanctions?
How do you rate us on how Canada is engaging across the board? What is your advice to us as we go forward?
Mr. Tinmaung: I am thankful to my government for all it has done so far, and my colleagues echo similar sentiments. Right after we recognized it as genocide, right after we pledged $300 million, and right after the revocation of Sittwe citizenship, a lot of these were very well acknowledged and received.
Coming back to the aid money business comment, this is a comment by one of our staff members who is taking care of the schools and the vocational training centres on the ground. We have some vocational training for female victims of the massacre. We are teaching them to sew. We are giving them skills. We have given each of them a hand-sewing machine.
The sentiment he shared is for the schools out there that are teaching up to Grade 8. It is his perspective that when you do not have an end goal in sight and when you do not have college or a university in sight, it is natural that quality education cannot be delivered. I understand his perspective and where he is coming from, but it doesn’t take away the fact that there are organizations and concrete efforts out there which are yielding results.
I would pass the Red Cross field hospital every time I went to visit our schools and our work at the camps. I know some doctors who went from Ottawa to that field hospital. The name of the Government of Canada can also be seen on some of the projects as you are passing by or driving by to get to the camp. A lot of good work is happening out there and there is a lot of gratitude for that.
I also mentioned in my address that we thank you for developments that I did not see prior to my last visit in 2015. People would drink water from a dirty pond. I actually saw people scooping water. There was very little or no aid. They were forgotten people.
Coming back to effectiveness, I would go into root causes. In our network and advocacy work, we want to focus on the root causes of why we are where we are. That is how to address the core of the situation.
Like Professor Akhavan mentioned, you go to the very leaders that have caused the massacre. You pursue them through ICC. When you go through the UN Genocide Convention then you bring the State of Myanmar to account, a state that has ratified the convention itself.
What about the people who desire or long to go back to their own land? In some of the interviews they said, “I don’t want to go to Canada. I don’t want to go to the United States.” They also asked, “What will they do there? I will not have my cattle. I will not have my goats. I will not have my own land.”
You cannot bring in 1 million people. I would doubt you could bring in even 10,000 people. They are uneducated, poor and desperate. They are not like our fellow brothers and sisters from Syria who come from law, medicine and business backgrounds.
With all that taken into consideration, my people have to go back to their own land. We could make that happen through our policy by focusing on the root cause, and the root cause is the Government of Myanmar. Unfortunately, the root cause hasn’t been addressed that much, or any policies that have been put into effect haven’t yielded results. We haven’t seen any changes in Myanmar.
The sentiment in the streets of the capital city of Yangon is: “These people are not from there. They are cockroaches. They are fleas. They have to go.”
I would gauge our effectiveness based on how much we can address the root cause to enable my people to go back to their own homeland and be recognized as human beings and citizens. That is how I would gauge it.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony today. We appreciate your coming and providing us with updates from your perspectives on the plight of the Rohingya refugees.
I will remind the senators that next week we will continue our examination of the Rohingya situation. We plan to hear from the High Commissioner of Bangladesh and from Professor John Packer. There may be others, as I think there is a gap that we have recognized.
(The committee adjourned.)