Banglar Bir
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 7,805
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
2:00 AM, November 13, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 01:17 PM, November 13, 2017
Learning the ropes
From Bangladesh standing its moral ground as it takes in another influx of Rohingya refugees to Australia's settlement services, there's a lot that we can learn from one another to better manage refugee crises
A Rohingya refugee holds his son on his shoulder as they walk through a rice field after crossing the Naf river from Myanmar into Bangladesh on October 9, 2017. PHOTO: AFP
Nahela Nowshin
The Bangladesh government has been globally lauded—and rightfully so—for welcoming with open arms, once again, the persecuted Rohingya people with whom the country has a checkered history.
The Rohingyas came to Bangladesh in droves in 1978, 1992, and the 2010s.
But at this juncture, many are wondering just how the latest influx of Rohingyas—the highest yet, numbering over 600,000—is going to pan out in the longer term.
With Bangladesh—as overpopulated and resource-strained as it is—now hosting almost a million Rohingya refugees, the absence of a coherent plan in dealing with a crisis not of its own doing is turning out to be detrimental.
Conditions at the camps are deteriorating and the dangers of child and sex trafficking are becoming more and more real as we speak.
The dilemma we are facing perhaps is a result of any government having to tow the difficult line between humanitarianism and realpolitik: At what point does ceaselessly taking on the burden of more and more refugees turn into an opportunistic tool for the sending country (in this case Myanmar) to achieve its internal objectives?
Is Myanmar not taking advantage of Bangladesh's compassion to rid the Rakhine State entirely of the Rohingya?
With a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the repatriation talks, it looks like the Rohingya crisis at our doorstep is only going to balloon with time. It also makes one wonder why Bangladesh—which is no stranger to hosting refugees—has not been able to do a better job of refugee management, particularly with regard to the Rohingya. If criticising the handling of the latest influx of Rohingyas seems unfair or premature, then what of the thousands who have come here previously and continue to live in squalid camps, with their movement restricted and with little to no chance of ever getting a proper education?
A major reason behind Bangladesh's inability to better manage the crisis is the utter failure of the international community—the usual suspect—to pressurise the Myanmar government into bringing an end to the repression of the minority in the first place, so that Rohingya refugees stranded in Bangladesh would feel confident enough to go back. I say the international community because refugee management isn't a one-man show. However, that does not completely absolve the host country of its responsibilities to do its best to protect the rights of these people who have left behind everything they have ever known in fear of persecution. Sadly though, that's not how it always works out.
Refugee crises are ridden with dilemmas. A dilemma for the oppressed to leave or stay. A dilemma for governments to condemn or remain silent. A dilemma for countries to refuse or let refugees in. And once they've done their part to take in a certain “quota”, there's yet again a dilemma about doing “too much” for fear that this would act as a pull factor. This has been the case with the Rohingya refugees who have come to Bangladesh in previous exoduses and have had to face restrictions such as limited access to education and no permission to work despite being here for decades.
"Refugee crises are ridden with dilemmas. A dilemma for the oppressed to leave or stay. A dilemma for governments to condemn or remain silent. A dilemma for countries to refuse or let refugees in. And once they've done their part to take in a certain “quota”, there's yet again a dilemma about doing “too much” for fear that this would act as a pull factor.
Bangladesh isn't alone when it comes to being precautious about becoming a haven for refugees. A similar line of reasoning seems to have also been taken by developed countries like Australia which are far better equipped to handle refugee crises of the scale that we are facing. Australia’s controversial offshore processing centres—long regarded as its Achilles' heel in its history of immigration policy—were established in order to “stop boat arrivals” of asylum seekers to prevent deaths at sea and “break the people smugglers' business model” (as per the official narrative).
But there lies an underlying objective of minimising the “pull factor”—much like the rationale behind imposing restrictions upon Rohingyas who have been living in camps in Bangladesh for years. In fact, multiple Australian immigration ministers have put forward the not-so-subtle argument that taking in refugees from offshore detention facilities is akin to “putting sugar on the table”.
The issue of asylum seekers and refugees has a long, ugly history of politicisation in the country and has become an intense area of criticism globally.
This handout picture taken and received on October 31, 2017 by Nick McKim, Australian Greens Senator for Tasmania, shows refugees gesturing inside the Manus detention camp in Papua New Guinea on the day of the camp's expected closure. Hundreds of "scared" refugees are refusing to leave an Australian detention camp in Papua New Guinea that formally "closed" on October 31, with fears they could be forcibly removed by authorities. Photo: Handout/Nick McKim/AFP
In humanitarian crises, governments inevitably find themselves between a rock and a hard place: Striking a balance between the moral responsibility of granting refuge to the persecuted and treading with enough caution so as to avoid negative consequences. In light of the critical situation at the Manus Island immigration detention centre—where refugees and asylum seekers have been defying the closure bids by Australia and Papua New Guinea and, as of writing this article, had until Sunday to stay in the camp—it is clear that the Australian government isn't ready to soften its stance on asylum seekers arriving by boat. That is extremely unfortunate because there is yet no sign of an end to the inhumane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers holed up in the offshore detention facilities.
Despite commonalities of ethical dilemmas, no two countries have the same experience in dealing with a refugee crisis—and there’s a lot that one can learn from another. For instance, the symbolic significance of the Bangladesh government's opening the borders to hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas is immense:
It should be a lesson in compassion for developed countries like the US and Australia that can do much more than they are doing to resettle the most vulnerable refugees. Differences in context aside, the number of refugees being resettled by both Australia and the US pales in comparison to the number of Rohingya refugees we have sheltered in the past few months alone.
That being said, there is also a lot to be learnt for Bangladesh from countries like Australia and Canada when it comes to emulating key features of settlement service programmes.
In Australia, for example, where the resettlement intake for 2017–18 has been increased to 16,250 spots (not nearly enough), an extremely well-structured, comprehensive refugee resettlement programme has been put into place for humanitarian entrants. From ensuring that its governance involves all tiers of the government (federal, state, local) to the provision of medical benefits, interpretation and translation services, and skills and education programmes, Australia's refugee resettlement programme can serve as a model/blueprint for countries like Bangladesh where a strong mechanism of refugee management is lacking.
This does not mean Bangladesh should also come up with a “resettlement programme” for the Rohingyas; rather what it can do is take inspiration from existing models of refugee programmes, such as the one in Australia, to come up with its own mechanism to better handle the crisis. Because right now, Bangladesh seems to have nothing close to a plan of action to deal with the massive numbers of Rohingya refugees.
Managing such humanitarian crises comes with extreme complexities to which there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. It requires the Herculean task of skillfully balancing the art of diplomacy, assuaging public opinion, and re-allocating limited resources.
But if there's one overarching lesson to be learnt, it is to ensure that the traumatising state of in-between, that is often a result of governments wanting a quick fix, does not prolong the cycle of suffering and exploitation of hapless victims of persecution—whether it be asylum seekers and refugees stranded in Nauru or PNG or undocumented Rohingyas in Bangladesh stuck in limbo.
Nahela Nowshin is a member of the editorial team at The Daily Star.
http://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/human-rights/learning-the-ropes-1490179
07:36 PM, November 13, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 07:50 PM, November 13, 2017
Myanmar replaces general in charge of Rakhine amid new reports of atrocities
A Myanmar soldier stands near Maungdaw, north of Rakhine state. Reuters file photo
Reuters, Yangon
Myanmar’s army has replaced the general in charge of Rakhine state following a military crackdown that has driven more than 600,000 Rohingya Muslims into neighbouring Bangladesh amid reports of mass rape, torture and other crimes against humanity.
No reason was given for Major General Maung Maung Soe being transferred from his post as the head of Western Command in Rakhine, where Myanmar’s military, known as the Tatmadaw, launched a sweeping counter-insurgency operation in August.
“I don’t know the reason why he was transferred,” Major General Aye Lwin, deputy director of the psychological warfare and public relation department at the Ministry of Defence, told Reuters. “He wasn’t moved into any position at present. He has been put in reserve.”
The move comes ahead of a visit on Wednesday by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who is expected to deliver a stern message to Myanmar’s generals, over whom national leader Aung San Suu Kyi, criticized in the West for failing to halt the atrocities, has little control.
Senators in Washington are pressing to pass legislation imposing economic and travel sanctions targeting the military and its business interests.
The government in mostly-Buddhist Myanmar regards the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
Leaders of Asian nations meeting in Manila on Monday skirted around the mass exodus of the Rohingya, disappointing human rights groups who were hoping for a tough stand.
Maung Maung Soe’s transfer was ordered on Friday and Brigadier General Soe Tint Naing, formerly a director in logistics, had been appointed as the new head of Western Command.
Made up of three divisions, Western Command is overseen by the Bureau of Special Operations, which reports to the office of the Commander in Chief of the military, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.
A senior UN official has described the army’s actions in Rakhine as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. Myanmar says the clearance operation was necessary for national security after Rohingya militants attacked 30 security posts and an army base in the state on August 25.
ALLEGED ATROCITIES
On Sunday, another UN official accused Myanmar’s military of conducting organized rape and other crimes against humanity, and said she would raise the matter with the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
“When I return to New York, I will brief and raise the issue with the prosecutor and president of the ICC whether they (Myanmar’s military) can be held responsible for these atrocities,” Pramila Patten, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, said in Dhaka.
“Sexual violence is being commanded, orchestrated and perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Myanmar, otherwise known as the Tatmadaw,” Patten said following a three-day tour of the Rohingya refugee camps in the Cox’s Bazar region of Bangladesh.
“Rape is an act and a weapon of genocide,” she said.
Refugees have accused Myanmar soldiers and Buddhist vigilantes of torching their villages, murdering their families and raping women.
Patten said brutal acts of sexual violence had occurred in the context of collective persecution that included the killing of adults and children, torture, mutilation and the burning and looting of villages.
“The forms of sexual violence we consistently heard about from survivors include gang-rape by multiple soldiers, forced public nudity and humiliation, and sexual slavery in military captivity. One survivor was in captivity for 45 days by the Myanmar army,” Patten said.
INTERNAL PROBE
Myanmar’s military said in October that an internal probe was being held into the conduct of its soldiers during the counteroffensive in Rakhine.
But Myanmar is refusing entry to a UN panel that was tasked with investigating allegations of abuses after a smaller military counteroffensive launched in October 2016.
Myanmar is in the early stages of a fragile transition to democracy after being ruled by a junta for 49 years, and the generals have retained their autonomy on matters of defense, security and border issues under a 2008 constitution, and three generals are members of the cabinet.
Suu Kyi has said that any alleged atrocities should be substantiated and investigated, while her government is working to stabilize Rakhine in order for the Rohingya to return.
For now, though, the flow is one way. International Rescue Committee, the New York-based aid agency, reckons that around two-thirds of an estimated 300,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar could head across the border in the coming months.
http://www.thedailystar.net/rohingy...m_medium=newsurl&utm_term=all&utm_content=all
Learning the ropes
From Bangladesh standing its moral ground as it takes in another influx of Rohingya refugees to Australia's settlement services, there's a lot that we can learn from one another to better manage refugee crises
A Rohingya refugee holds his son on his shoulder as they walk through a rice field after crossing the Naf river from Myanmar into Bangladesh on October 9, 2017. PHOTO: AFP
Nahela Nowshin
The Bangladesh government has been globally lauded—and rightfully so—for welcoming with open arms, once again, the persecuted Rohingya people with whom the country has a checkered history.
The Rohingyas came to Bangladesh in droves in 1978, 1992, and the 2010s.
But at this juncture, many are wondering just how the latest influx of Rohingyas—the highest yet, numbering over 600,000—is going to pan out in the longer term.
With Bangladesh—as overpopulated and resource-strained as it is—now hosting almost a million Rohingya refugees, the absence of a coherent plan in dealing with a crisis not of its own doing is turning out to be detrimental.
Conditions at the camps are deteriorating and the dangers of child and sex trafficking are becoming more and more real as we speak.
The dilemma we are facing perhaps is a result of any government having to tow the difficult line between humanitarianism and realpolitik: At what point does ceaselessly taking on the burden of more and more refugees turn into an opportunistic tool for the sending country (in this case Myanmar) to achieve its internal objectives?
Is Myanmar not taking advantage of Bangladesh's compassion to rid the Rakhine State entirely of the Rohingya?
With a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the repatriation talks, it looks like the Rohingya crisis at our doorstep is only going to balloon with time. It also makes one wonder why Bangladesh—which is no stranger to hosting refugees—has not been able to do a better job of refugee management, particularly with regard to the Rohingya. If criticising the handling of the latest influx of Rohingyas seems unfair or premature, then what of the thousands who have come here previously and continue to live in squalid camps, with their movement restricted and with little to no chance of ever getting a proper education?
A major reason behind Bangladesh's inability to better manage the crisis is the utter failure of the international community—the usual suspect—to pressurise the Myanmar government into bringing an end to the repression of the minority in the first place, so that Rohingya refugees stranded in Bangladesh would feel confident enough to go back. I say the international community because refugee management isn't a one-man show. However, that does not completely absolve the host country of its responsibilities to do its best to protect the rights of these people who have left behind everything they have ever known in fear of persecution. Sadly though, that's not how it always works out.
Refugee crises are ridden with dilemmas. A dilemma for the oppressed to leave or stay. A dilemma for governments to condemn or remain silent. A dilemma for countries to refuse or let refugees in. And once they've done their part to take in a certain “quota”, there's yet again a dilemma about doing “too much” for fear that this would act as a pull factor. This has been the case with the Rohingya refugees who have come to Bangladesh in previous exoduses and have had to face restrictions such as limited access to education and no permission to work despite being here for decades.
"Refugee crises are ridden with dilemmas. A dilemma for the oppressed to leave or stay. A dilemma for governments to condemn or remain silent. A dilemma for countries to refuse or let refugees in. And once they've done their part to take in a certain “quota”, there's yet again a dilemma about doing “too much” for fear that this would act as a pull factor.
Bangladesh isn't alone when it comes to being precautious about becoming a haven for refugees. A similar line of reasoning seems to have also been taken by developed countries like Australia which are far better equipped to handle refugee crises of the scale that we are facing. Australia’s controversial offshore processing centres—long regarded as its Achilles' heel in its history of immigration policy—were established in order to “stop boat arrivals” of asylum seekers to prevent deaths at sea and “break the people smugglers' business model” (as per the official narrative).
But there lies an underlying objective of minimising the “pull factor”—much like the rationale behind imposing restrictions upon Rohingyas who have been living in camps in Bangladesh for years. In fact, multiple Australian immigration ministers have put forward the not-so-subtle argument that taking in refugees from offshore detention facilities is akin to “putting sugar on the table”.
The issue of asylum seekers and refugees has a long, ugly history of politicisation in the country and has become an intense area of criticism globally.
This handout picture taken and received on October 31, 2017 by Nick McKim, Australian Greens Senator for Tasmania, shows refugees gesturing inside the Manus detention camp in Papua New Guinea on the day of the camp's expected closure. Hundreds of "scared" refugees are refusing to leave an Australian detention camp in Papua New Guinea that formally "closed" on October 31, with fears they could be forcibly removed by authorities. Photo: Handout/Nick McKim/AFP
In humanitarian crises, governments inevitably find themselves between a rock and a hard place: Striking a balance between the moral responsibility of granting refuge to the persecuted and treading with enough caution so as to avoid negative consequences. In light of the critical situation at the Manus Island immigration detention centre—where refugees and asylum seekers have been defying the closure bids by Australia and Papua New Guinea and, as of writing this article, had until Sunday to stay in the camp—it is clear that the Australian government isn't ready to soften its stance on asylum seekers arriving by boat. That is extremely unfortunate because there is yet no sign of an end to the inhumane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers holed up in the offshore detention facilities.
Despite commonalities of ethical dilemmas, no two countries have the same experience in dealing with a refugee crisis—and there’s a lot that one can learn from another. For instance, the symbolic significance of the Bangladesh government's opening the borders to hundreds of thousands of Rohingyas is immense:
It should be a lesson in compassion for developed countries like the US and Australia that can do much more than they are doing to resettle the most vulnerable refugees. Differences in context aside, the number of refugees being resettled by both Australia and the US pales in comparison to the number of Rohingya refugees we have sheltered in the past few months alone.
That being said, there is also a lot to be learnt for Bangladesh from countries like Australia and Canada when it comes to emulating key features of settlement service programmes.
In Australia, for example, where the resettlement intake for 2017–18 has been increased to 16,250 spots (not nearly enough), an extremely well-structured, comprehensive refugee resettlement programme has been put into place for humanitarian entrants. From ensuring that its governance involves all tiers of the government (federal, state, local) to the provision of medical benefits, interpretation and translation services, and skills and education programmes, Australia's refugee resettlement programme can serve as a model/blueprint for countries like Bangladesh where a strong mechanism of refugee management is lacking.
This does not mean Bangladesh should also come up with a “resettlement programme” for the Rohingyas; rather what it can do is take inspiration from existing models of refugee programmes, such as the one in Australia, to come up with its own mechanism to better handle the crisis. Because right now, Bangladesh seems to have nothing close to a plan of action to deal with the massive numbers of Rohingya refugees.
Managing such humanitarian crises comes with extreme complexities to which there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. It requires the Herculean task of skillfully balancing the art of diplomacy, assuaging public opinion, and re-allocating limited resources.
But if there's one overarching lesson to be learnt, it is to ensure that the traumatising state of in-between, that is often a result of governments wanting a quick fix, does not prolong the cycle of suffering and exploitation of hapless victims of persecution—whether it be asylum seekers and refugees stranded in Nauru or PNG or undocumented Rohingyas in Bangladesh stuck in limbo.
Nahela Nowshin is a member of the editorial team at The Daily Star.
http://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/human-rights/learning-the-ropes-1490179
07:36 PM, November 13, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 07:50 PM, November 13, 2017
Myanmar replaces general in charge of Rakhine amid new reports of atrocities
A Myanmar soldier stands near Maungdaw, north of Rakhine state. Reuters file photo
Reuters, Yangon
Myanmar’s army has replaced the general in charge of Rakhine state following a military crackdown that has driven more than 600,000 Rohingya Muslims into neighbouring Bangladesh amid reports of mass rape, torture and other crimes against humanity.
No reason was given for Major General Maung Maung Soe being transferred from his post as the head of Western Command in Rakhine, where Myanmar’s military, known as the Tatmadaw, launched a sweeping counter-insurgency operation in August.
“I don’t know the reason why he was transferred,” Major General Aye Lwin, deputy director of the psychological warfare and public relation department at the Ministry of Defence, told Reuters. “He wasn’t moved into any position at present. He has been put in reserve.”
The move comes ahead of a visit on Wednesday by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who is expected to deliver a stern message to Myanmar’s generals, over whom national leader Aung San Suu Kyi, criticized in the West for failing to halt the atrocities, has little control.
Senators in Washington are pressing to pass legislation imposing economic and travel sanctions targeting the military and its business interests.
The government in mostly-Buddhist Myanmar regards the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
Leaders of Asian nations meeting in Manila on Monday skirted around the mass exodus of the Rohingya, disappointing human rights groups who were hoping for a tough stand.
Maung Maung Soe’s transfer was ordered on Friday and Brigadier General Soe Tint Naing, formerly a director in logistics, had been appointed as the new head of Western Command.
Made up of three divisions, Western Command is overseen by the Bureau of Special Operations, which reports to the office of the Commander in Chief of the military, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.
A senior UN official has described the army’s actions in Rakhine as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. Myanmar says the clearance operation was necessary for national security after Rohingya militants attacked 30 security posts and an army base in the state on August 25.
ALLEGED ATROCITIES
On Sunday, another UN official accused Myanmar’s military of conducting organized rape and other crimes against humanity, and said she would raise the matter with the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
“When I return to New York, I will brief and raise the issue with the prosecutor and president of the ICC whether they (Myanmar’s military) can be held responsible for these atrocities,” Pramila Patten, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, said in Dhaka.
“Sexual violence is being commanded, orchestrated and perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Myanmar, otherwise known as the Tatmadaw,” Patten said following a three-day tour of the Rohingya refugee camps in the Cox’s Bazar region of Bangladesh.
“Rape is an act and a weapon of genocide,” she said.
Refugees have accused Myanmar soldiers and Buddhist vigilantes of torching their villages, murdering their families and raping women.
Patten said brutal acts of sexual violence had occurred in the context of collective persecution that included the killing of adults and children, torture, mutilation and the burning and looting of villages.
“The forms of sexual violence we consistently heard about from survivors include gang-rape by multiple soldiers, forced public nudity and humiliation, and sexual slavery in military captivity. One survivor was in captivity for 45 days by the Myanmar army,” Patten said.
INTERNAL PROBE
Myanmar’s military said in October that an internal probe was being held into the conduct of its soldiers during the counteroffensive in Rakhine.
But Myanmar is refusing entry to a UN panel that was tasked with investigating allegations of abuses after a smaller military counteroffensive launched in October 2016.
Myanmar is in the early stages of a fragile transition to democracy after being ruled by a junta for 49 years, and the generals have retained their autonomy on matters of defense, security and border issues under a 2008 constitution, and three generals are members of the cabinet.
Suu Kyi has said that any alleged atrocities should be substantiated and investigated, while her government is working to stabilize Rakhine in order for the Rohingya to return.
For now, though, the flow is one way. International Rescue Committee, the New York-based aid agency, reckons that around two-thirds of an estimated 300,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar could head across the border in the coming months.
http://www.thedailystar.net/rohingy...m_medium=newsurl&utm_term=all&utm_content=all
www.thestateless.com/2017/11/sitagu-sayadaw-and-justifiable-evils-in-buddhism.html
