Lines Of Paradox
Rohingya refugee : Casting a third eye
Emdadul Haque
| |
 |
| |
Photo: agefotostock.com |
Undeniably, the Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh under the generosity coupled with humanism of the country are in double edged setback. Myanmar forced them to leave the country through heinous persecution, maltreatment and discrimination branding their ancestors as Bangladeshi and contrarily, Bangladesh refuted the allegation terming it as a politically motivated statement. Due to the historical mistake of the then military ruler along with humanitarian grounds, Bangladesh allowed their entry into the country twice but refused their recent effort for many practical reasons including security concerns and demographic burden.
Amid scores of its own discrepancies Bangladesh has been generous enough to host around 400,000-500,000 Rohingya refugees for more than three decades. Among them only 29,849 are officially registered in two official refugee camps in the southern part of Cox's Bazar while the rest of them are undocumented and scattered in Cox's Bazar and Bandarban. The recent attempt of Rohingya boat people fleeing sectarian violence to enter into Cox's Bazar was prevented by the government providing them emergency reliefs like food, water, and medicine ruling out appeals from international communities.
Bangladesh is always respectful towards international law and international human rights law as well, as per its compassionate attitude and constitutional mandate of cooperation of international peace, security and solidarity. Although Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is not legally enforceable, it is a moral guideline for all states recognizing, promoting and protecting life, liberty, equality and dignity of all people irrespective of race, colour, creed and religion. Showing respect to Article 14 of the UDHR, Bangladesh has extended its cooperative hand as a de facto host country of Rohingya refugees. Bangladesh is not a party to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. So, the country is not legally obliged to hosting of refugee tacitly or explicitly. Even the demographic vulnerability and socio-economic condition of the country do not suggest taking over extra responsibility but the principle of non refoulement as a part of customary international law reminds us to stay beside those persecuted people or believed to have well founded fear of persecution.
The country being a member of UNHRC has so far ratified eight out of nine core international human rights documents including ICCPR, ICESCR, UNCRC, CEDAW and CAT except the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons of Enforced Disappearance. These human rights instruments do not bind the country to take direct responsibility of such refugees because, the Supreme Court of the country in the case of HM Ershad v. Bangladesh and Others, 7 BLC (AD) 67 held that any international treaty or document after signing or ratification is not directly enforceable unless and until the parliament enacts similar statute, however, how sweet the document is. Here, the country must be cautious to be a party to any international human rights document because after being party to such document moral obligation is lying on the shoulder. Before suggesting for being a party, the high ups must conduct a SWOT analysis as well as cost-benefit analysis of any Treaty or Convention applying the doctrine of priority, necessity and legitimate expectation.
The gravity of persecution on Rohingya Muslim minority by the government of Myanmar has been intensified after its independence from the British in 1948. The government carried out a large scale crackdown in 1962 and in 1978 and the massive onslaught in 1991 after the military takeover in 1982. In fact, the crisis got aggravated due to enactment of many black laws sideling the rights of Rohingya people and even the 1982 Citizenship law excluded them from the list of 135 races entitled to citizenship. The human rights of these people are under the black claw of military rulers causing humanity suffering. In 1989, the military junta changed the name Burma to Myanmar, a year after thousands were killed in the suppression of a popular uprising but the fate of Rohingya people is unchanged.
People of Myanmar are lucky enough for getting a great leader like Aung San Suu Kyi. In a recent interview with CNN she says she likes military personnel in the country because her father established it but do not like their activities. Regrettably, the present stance of Suu Kyi is a mismatch between her firm commitments of lifelong struggle and sacrifice for expediting democracy, rule of law and human rights in Myanmar and the persisting ethnic Rohingya issue. Of course, if she takes side of Rohingya people then it can hinder her plausibility to be in power in near future as senior leaders of her National League for Democracy (NLD) are not favouring the issue. So, she is cautious on her political career and seems tight lipped.
UNHCR representative in a consultation on the issue at Dhaka University on September 22 urged people not to treat them as a cancer of the society rather treat them humanly searching for a holistic solution. He said, UNHCR is working with the crisis for a durable solution through repatriation, reintegration and resettlement.
International communities are pressurizing Bangladesh, who is predominantly dependent on donor agencies whereas they must convince or compel Myanmar for a peaceful solution rather than lifting of embargos on the country.
In fact, mudslinging by the stakeholders cannot bring a durable solution rather can deepen the crisis. The diplomatic failure of Bangladesh to raise voice against Myanmar in International forums and arrogance of Myanmar is also responsible for its stagnated position. Both must not forget that, “Every problem has in it, the seeds of its own solution. If you don't have any problem, you don't get any solution.” The solid stand of both states needs to be changed for finding a sustained solution of the dispute. World communities including regional and international bodies must be involved for a compromised better end of the crisis. Law always cannot solve the problem and so rights based approach as a solution to the problem is unrealistic desiring an equitable solution. While approaching holistic settlement of the crisis, the initiators may remember the quotation of a priest, “Oh Judge! Your damn laws: the good people don't need them and bad people don't follow them so what good they are?” While involving American or European, the initiators must keep in mind that human rights treaties are mostly drafted by either Americans or Europeans but they are born for preaching and teaching human rights outside of their countries but not for practicing.
The writer is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Law and Justice, Southeast University.
