Who are the Rohingya and what is happening in Myanmar?

This week marks one month since the recent crisis began in Myanmar’s Rakhine state, forcing 430,000 Rohingya people to flee their homes.

So who are the Rohingya? And how did they come to be one of the most persecuted minorities on Earth?

Who are the Rohingya?

Three years ago, religious and ethnic tensions between the Rohingya Muslims and the Rakhine Buddhists (who make up the majority of the population in Mayanmar) escalated into widespread, deadly rioting. Hundreds of thousands were forced to flee.

Since then, ongoing violent attacks have forced even more people to leave their homes – but Rohingya people are rejected almost everywhere they seek safety. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people are now living in limbo as refugees across Southeast Asia.

The Myanmar Government says that Rohingya people are not Burmese citizens – but the Rohingya have been living in Myanmar for generations. Today, they are a people with no home or citizenship. Even their name (the very word ‘Rohingya‘) is denied them in Myanmar.

Rohingya people are being widely abused and exploited. They are one of the most persecuted minorities in the world.

Rohingya Muslims walk through water after crossing the Myanmar border and Naff river to enter Bangladesh. © Getty Images
Rohingya Muslims walk through water after crossing the Myanmar border and Naff river to enter Bangladesh © Getty Images

Seeking help but finding none

In May 2015, thousands of Rohingya people were forced to cross the dangerous Bay of Bengal, off the coast of south-east Asia, in search of a safe place to live. Many people became stranded at sea and it is estimated that hundreds died.

Boats containing desperate Rohingya refugees were pushed back by Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Almost 20,000 Amnesty supporters urged our government to call for, and assist with, immediate search and rescue operations and champion new, humane solutions for refugees in the region.

Though few Rohingya people can afford the boat journey to Australia, some have little option left but to travel here. After a dangerous and desperate journey, they face some of the harshest policies towards asylum seekers in the world, with a number of Rohingya held on Manus Island and Nauru.

The most recent bout of violence began in August 2017 and in the last four weeks alone more than 400,000 Rohingya people have fled Myanmar to nearby Bangladesh. Amidst reports of killings by Myanmar security forces, satellite images suggest entire villages have been burned to the ground.

Again, Rohingya people are forced to risk everything for a chance at safety.

What is life like for the Rohingya people?

Imagine you were denied an identity and a place to call home. Your rights to study, work, travel, marry and practice your religion didn’t exist – because you belong nowhere.

You’re not given any way to prove who you are or where you’re from, so gaining citizenship status anywhere is almost impossible. Wherever you go, you’re locked in detention – simply because of who you are.

This is the life of a Rohingya person.

Rohingya women and children

Rohingya women and children are at particularly great risk, both when travelling and once they arrive in neighbouring countries.

Yasmine, a Rohingya woman, was forced to flee Myanmar with her young children, Amina (six) and Tasmin (three). They boarded a fishing boat late one night, hoping to register as refugees in Malaysia and be allowed to stay. Instead the family endured 16 days of seasickness and overcrowding before they were taken to Thailand.

Yasmine knew the dangers of escaping, but felt she had no choice. Her only form of identification, a household registration card, was taken away by authorities and never replaced. No identification means no rights. The family’s only option was to leave.

Now, trapped in a tiny room on the outskirts of Bangkok, they live in constant fear that the Thai authorities will arrest and deport them.

(Photo by Onur Coban/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Rohingya refugees fleeing from ongoing military operations in Myanmar’s Rakhine state © Onur Coban/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Australian detention

Imran Mohammad, a 22-year old Rohingya man, fled from Myanmar at the age of 16 after his life was threatened. Arriving on Christmas Island by boat, Imran was then moved to Manus Island, where he has been imprisoned for more than three years.

“I’m a refugee who refuses to surrender my hope”, says Iran. “I hold on to my belief in humanity and freedom. I never got the chance to attend school or university; these words in English are my own – painstakingly studied with limited resources.”

Imran recently wrote an open letter to Malcolm Turnbull calling for freedom and safety for Rohingya refugees in offshore detention.

What needs to happen?

The Myanmar Government should immediately end the violent crackdown on the Rohingya and amend or repeal the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law to provide the Rohingya people with full citizenship in the country.

Bangladesh and other governments in Southeast Asia must grant access to those fleeing violence and seeking protection; guaranteeing they will not be pushed back or arbitrarily detained and instead that all their rights will be respected.

Join us today in calling on the Australian government to help end the violence against the Rohingya people.

With your support, Amnesty International has the global reach and ability to shine a light on the suffering of asylum seekers and demand action.

Article by Katie Young, Online Editor

Mass execution in Iraq

Responding to the news that at least 42 people were executed in Iraq yesterday on “terrorism” charges, Lynn Maalouf, Middle East Research Director at Amnesty International said:

“This mass execution is a shocking display of the Iraqi authorities’ resort to the death penalty to try to show they are responding to security threats.

“There can be no doubt that individuals who carry out deadly attacks against the civilian population should face justice, but the Iraqi authorities need to recognise that carrying out executions is not the answer, and will not make the country or its people safer.

“The Iraqi authorities have a deplorable track record when it comes to use of the death penalty. In many cases previously people have been put to death after deeply unfair trials and in some cases after being tortured to ‘confess’.

“The death penalty is an irreversible and reprehensible punishment that should not be used in any circumstances and there is no evidence to show that it deters crime more than any other means of punishment.”

USA: Muslim Ban Revision Risks More Suffering

Following a revision of President Trump’s travel ban to now include restrictions on travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen, Naureen Shah, senior campaigns director for Amnesty International USA, released the following statement:

“Since this ban was implemented 10 months ago, we’ve seen families torn apart and whole nations of people demonized for the crimes of a few. The order was a catastrophe not just for those seeking safety but for those who simply want to travel, work, or study in the United States. Today’s action neither relieves this tension nor keeps anyone safe.

“Just because the original ban was especially outrageous does not mean we should stand for yet another version of government-sanctioned discrimination. It is senseless and cruel to ban whole nationalities of people who are often fleeing the very same violence that the U.S. government wishes to keep out. This must not be normalised.”

“At a time when the entire world is facing the largest refugee crisis since World War II, the U.S. government should not be taking actions that may encourage other countries to institute even more sweeping bans on top of already onerous vetting processes that will slam more doors on desperate people seeking safety.”

“Again and again we have seen this administration go against basic values of decency and dignity when it comes to aiding oppressed people, and we will continue to document the effects of these actions on the lives of men, women and children around the world. This ban must not stand in any form.”

Myanmar: ‘Damning’ Video and satellite evidence show new fires in Rohingya villages

Amnesty International has assessed three new videos taken inside Rakhine State as recently as Friday afternoon showing large plumes of smoke rising from Rohingya villages, one of which was already deserted, as well as satellite imagery with smoke visible over burnt-out structures.

Local sources in northern Rakhine State claim the fires were started by members of the Myanmar security forces and local vigilante mobs.

“This damning evidence from the ground and from space flies in the face of Aung Suu Kyi’s assertions to the world that what she called military ‘clearance operations’ in Rakhine State ended on 5 September.”

Tirana Hasan, Director of Crisis Response at Amnesty International.

“This damning evidence from the ground and from space flies in the face of Aung Suu Kyi’s assertions to the world that what she called military ‘clearance operations’ in Rakhine State ended on 5 September,” said Tirana Hasan, Director of Crisis Response at Amnesty International.

“Almost three weeks later, we can see in real time how there is no let-up in the campaign of violence against Rohingya in northern Rakhine State. Rohingya homes and villages continue to burn, before, during and after their inhabitants take flight in terror. Not satisfied with simply forcing Rohingya from their homes, authorities seem intent on ensuring they have no homes to return to.

“The time has come and gone for giving Myanmar’s military and political leadership the benefit of the doubt. The international community must be unequivocal in its condemnation and take effective action to halt this ethnic cleansing campaign as well as bring the perpetrators to account.”

One video, taken on 21 September near the village of Hpar Wat Chaung village, northern Maungdaw township, shows agricultural land in the foreground with a large plume of smoke rising from a settlement located amid a group of trees. A local resident told Amnesty International that Myanmar Border Guard Police (BGP) and vigilante groups started the fires in the early afternoon, and that there were further burning operations that same evening.

Amnesty International reviewed satellite imagery of Hpar Wat Chaung from 16 and 22 September. Smoke is still visible in the later image, which clearly showed the village had been set ablaze and structures standing just days earlier had been burnt to the ground. Additionally, satellite sensors detected a recent active fire in the village, further corroborating the incident.

Two more videos, taken from different angles reportedly outside Nga Yant Chaung village in Buthidaung township, show the village in flames on Friday afternoon. Activists, including a source in Rakhine State itself, have told Amnesty International that the burning began between 1:30pm and 2:00pm local time.

Scorched-earth campaign

On 14 September, Amnesty International published irrefutable evidence of a mass-scale scorched-earth campaign across northern Rakhine State, where Myanmar security forces and vigilante mobs have been burning down entire Rohingya villages and shooting people at random as they try to flee. The violence is part of an unlawful and disproportionate response to coordinated attacks on security posts by a Rohingya armed group on 25 August.

The organisation’s analysis of active fire-detection data, satellite imagery, photographs and videos from the ground, as well as interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses in Myanmar and across the border in Bangladesh, show how an orchestrated campaign of systematic burnings has targeted Rohingya villages across northern Rakhine State.

The violence has prompted more than 429,000 people to flee to Bangladesh as refugees since 25 August. In legal terms, these are crimes against humanity – murder and deportation or forcible transfer of population.

Tens of thousands of other people – including members of Rakhine State’s other ethnic minority communities – have also been displaced as a result of the violence.

Yemen/Australia: US-made bomb kills and maims children in deadly strike on residential homes

  • There must be an embargo on the export of all weapons, munitions, military equipment and technology that can be used in the Yemen conflict

  • The Australian Government must not be complicit in human rights violations in Yemen and must immediately implement an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia.

  • An independent, impartial inquiry into all reported violations is urgently needed and all those responsible for crimes under international law must be brought to justice in fair trials.

Amnesty International reveals today that it was a United States-made bomb that destroyed a residential building in Yemen’s capital killing 16 civilians and injuring 17 more, including the parents and all five of five-year-old Buthaina’s siblings (whose photograph in the aftermath of the strike is here).

Amnesty International’s arms expert analysed remnants of the weapon and found it bore clear markings that matched US-made components commonly used in laser-guided air-dropped bombs.

The 25 August airstrike hit a cluster of houses in Sana’a, severely damaging three of them, and killing seven children including all five of Buthaina’s brothers and sisters. Eight other children were injured, amongst them was two-year-old Sam Bassim al-Hamdani, who lost both his parents.

“We can now conclusively say that the bomb that killed Buthaina’s parents and siblings, and other civilians, was made in the USA,” said Lynn Maalouf, Research director for the Middle East at Amnesty International.

“There simply is no explanation the USA or other countries such as the UK and France can give to justify the continued flow of weapons to the Saudi Arabia-led coalition for use in the conflict in Yemen. It has time and time again committed serious violations of international law, including war crimes, over the past 30 months, with devastating consequences for the civilian population.”

Australia’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its allies

Australia approved four military export licenses to Saudi Arabia in the past 12 months alone and has taken further steps to further expand its military exports to the kingdom. The Saudi-led military coalition has been involved in an ongoing conflict in Yemen since March 2015, and has conducted numerous attacks that have violated international humanitarian law, including indiscriminate and disproportionate airstrikes that have killed and injured many civilians.

Australia is obliged under the Arms Trade Treaty not to authorise weapons transfers to countries where there is an overriding risk these weapons could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law.

Amnesty International Australia’s Crisis Campaigns Coordinator Diana Sayed said, “This is yet another horrific example of the ongoing atrocities that are occurring in Yemen by all parties to the conflict. We urge the Australian Government to publicly report the exact nature of all arms transfers to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to date and to its allies in the war in Yemen, and cease the authorisation of any future arms transfers while there remains a substantial risk these arms will be used to fuel human rights abuses.

“It is unacceptable that the Australian government denies transparency in its arms sales to Saudi Arabia while Saudi is committing shocking human rights abuses in Yemen, along with its coalition partners.”

Amnesty International is calling for the immediate implementation of a comprehensive embargo to ensure that no party to the conflict in Yemen is supplied with weapons, munitions, military equipment and technology that can be used in the conflict. An independent, impartial inquiry into reported violations is urgently needed and all those responsible for crimes under international law must be brought to justice in fair trials.

Background 

After examining photographic evidence provided by a local journalist who dug out the remaining fragments of the weapon at the site, Amnesty International’s arms expert was able to positively identify the data plate from a US-made MAU-169L/B computer control group. It is a part used in several types of laser-guided air-dropped bombs.

According to the Defence Security Cooperation Agency, in 2015 the US government authorised the sale of 2,800 guided bombs to Saudi Arabia that were equipped with the MAU-169L/B computer control group, including GBU-48, GBU-54, and GBU-56 guided bombs.

“She had five siblings to play with. Now she has none” – Ali al-Raymi

The Saudi Arabia-led coalition launched the devastating attacks at around 2AM in Faj Attan, a residential area in Yemen’s capital Sana’a.

Ali al-Raymi, 32, lost his brother Mohamed al-Raymi along with his sister-in-law and his five nieces and nephews aged between two and 10 years. His niece, five-year-old Buthaina, was the sole survivor.

He told Amnesty International: “When you ask her ‘what do you want?’, she says ‘I want to go home’… She thinks that if she goes home, she will find them [her family] there… She had five siblings to play with. Now she has none… What kind of sorrow and pain could she be feeling in her heart?”

The Saudi Arabia-led coalition has admitted to carrying out the devastating attack, but maintains that the civilian casualties were the result of a “technical error”. The coalition claims it targeted a “legitimate military objective,” which belonged to the Huthi-Saleh forces.

According to local residents, one of the buildings in the area was frequented by a Huthi-aligned individual. Amnesty International was not able to confirm his identity, role or whether he was present at the time of the attack.

However, even if there were military objectives in the vicinity, international humanitarian law prohibits disproportionate attacks, including those expected to kill or injure civilians.

The Saudi Arabia-led coalition spokesperson also said that the incident had been referred to the coalition’s Joint Incidents Assessment Team (JIAT) for further investigations. To date, Amnesty International is not aware of any members of the coalition taking concrete steps to investigate, take disciplinary measures against or prosecute officers suspected of criminal responsibility for war crimes.

“The coalition’s complete disregard for civilian lives, as well as their lack of commitment to effective investigations, highlights the need for an independent international inquiry to look into alleged violations of international law,” said Lynn Maalouf.

“It is shameful that instead of holding the coalition accountable for their actions in Yemen, key allies including the USA and the UK have continued to supply it with huge quantities of arms.”

Since February 2016, Amnesty International has urged all states to ensure that no party to the conflict in Yemen is supplied – either directly or indirectly – with weapons that would be used in the conflict. It has also repeatedly called for an international independent investigation to be conducted into all alleged violations of international law committed by all parties.

According to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) annual report on Yemen, 1,120 children have been killed and 1,541 injured since the beginning of the conflict in March 2015. In the past year alone, more than half of these child casualties were attributed to the coalition airstrikes.

The Huthi-Saleh forces, as well as anti-Huthi forces on the ground, have also committed violations international humanitarian law and human rights abuses. According to the OHCHR, the Huthi-Saleh forces are responsible for the majority of child casualties caused by ground fighting, shelling and the use of banned antipersonnel landmines.

Explainer: What legal benefits do married couples have that de facto couples do not?

By Hannah Robert, La Trobe University and Fiona Kelly, La Trobe University

Opponents of marriage equality often say that married and de facto couples already have the same rights. To what extent is this true? And, in legal terms, how much do the differences matter?

In an opinion piece last week, former prime minister Tony Abbott claimed:

Already, indeed, same-sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married.

This isn’t true.

At the most fundamental level, same-sex couples do not have the right to marry and therefore do not have “marriage equality”. While de facto couples may be able to assert some of the same rights as married couples, they often have to expend significant time, money and unnecessary heartache to do so.

Marriage allows people to access a complete package of rights simply by showing their marriage certificate or ticking a box, and is based on their mutual promises to one another rather than proving their relationship meets particular interdependency criteria.

Unlike de facto relationships, marriage is recognised nationally and internationally.

Differences under law

The laws regarding de facto couples differ between states and the Commonwealth, and from one right to another.

For Centrelink purposes, you are a de facto couple from the moment you start living together; for migration law it is after 12 months of cohabiting (unless you have a child together or de facto relationships are illegal in your country of origin).

Under family law it is different again: a minimum of two years (unless you have a child together, have registered your relationship, or have made significant contributions to the relationship).

Where married couples use IVF, both spouses are automatically legal parents. But for de facto couples using reproductive technologies, their child’s parentage depends on whether a de facto relationship is proven to exist.

Couples who are or were married must file for property and/or spousal maintenance proceedings in the Family Court within one year of finalising a divorce, but have the option to agree to an extension of time in which to file. No such provision exists for de facto couples; they must file proceedings within two years.

In many states, a new marriage nullifies an existing will, unless that will was quite specifically worded. This is not the case when you enter a new de facto relationship. In the latter situation, if you die before making a new will, a court might need to decide how your assets are allocated (with costs borne by your estate).

In all contexts, de facto relationships require significant proof, which means partners may have to provide evidence about their living and child care arrangements, sexual relationship, finances, ownership of property, commitment to a shared life and how they present as a couple in public. These criteria can be absent from a heterosexual marriage, but it is still deemed a marriage.

Despite the wording in the marriage ceremony that marriage “is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”, it is up to married partners whether or not they share their finances, their housework, their childcare responsibilities, their homes or their beds, and how long they want to stay married.

‘Registered relationships’ – separate but equal?

Many states and territories have legislation permitting couples to register their domestic relationships – the exceptions are the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

To register, you first need to prove that you meet the criteria – for example, providing “personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the material benefit of the other”. Where marriage delivers rights based on a couple’s promises to one another, registered relationships still require proof that a relationship meeting the criteria already exists.

Such registered relationships are not reliably recognised overseas.

When does it matter?

While married and de facto relationships largely have equal standing before the law, only marriage is immediate and incontrovertible.

Difficulties for de facto couples arise from the complex inter-relationship between the “burden of proof”, institutionalised homophobia, and the sticky situations that can often arise in interpersonal or family conflict.

For example, a person in a de facto relationship might need to prove their relationship:

  • if their partner is very ill, in order to make decisions about their care and treatment (this can be prevented by having another piece of paper – a medical enduring power of attorney equivalent document depending on your state or territory);
  • if their partner who has died, in order to be listed as their spouse on a death certificate or to be involved in funeral planning (being listed on a death certificate is critically important when it comes to claiming superannuation payouts and myriad other issues); or
  • if their partner has died without leaving a will.

Sadly, the times when marital status matters most are likely to be times of grief, or high stress. To compound this, there are many examples of a couple’s “de facto” status being challenged by one partner’s family of origin. Marriage, on the other hand, is undeniable.

Unmarried de facto couples often experience difficulties attaining residency and/or working rights overseas. Married couples rarely experience these problems.

Same obligations, without the same right to wed

Same-sex couples have all the same obligations as married couples – to pay taxes, child support and so on. But they don’t have the ability to marry – to enjoy the symbolic and emotional effects of entering into a legal union with their partners before friends and family, or enjoy the legal security of having one document to confirm the legal status of their relationship.

Many heterosexual couples in Australia choose to live in de facto relationships. This is their right. Same-sex couples do not get to choose – they have no alternative.

The ConversationMarriage equality is about giving couples genuine choice about how they structure their relationships.

Hannah Robert, Lecturer in Law, La Trobe University and Fiona Kelly, Associate Professor, Law School, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Rohingya crisis: Australia must cut ties with Myanmar Army

 

 

“While a campaign of ethnic cleansing is being committed against the Rohingya people, the Australian Government must suspend all forms of support to Myanmar’s military,” Amnesty International Australia’s Campaigns Manager Michael Hayworth said.

“Amnesty International is calling on governments with military relationships with the Myanmar Army to use these relationships to press the army to stop the violations; and those providing training to the military to immediately suspend co-operation. This includes Australia.

“The Australian government must also end its hypocritical ‘cash for return’ policy for Rohingya people on Manus Island and Nauru. Offering Rohingyas money to return to a country where there is a current campaign of ethnic cleansing against them is unconscionable.

“We welcome the $15 million increase of aid funds by the Australian Government to help Rohingya people fleeing this violence and continue to caution that this crisis is likely to require further ongoing assistance.”

MANUS/NAURU: Welcome news for some, but solution must be for all

“Amnesty International welcomes the news that for a select few people on Manus Island and Nauru this week may finally bring hope, and the prospect of safety as they receive news about settlement in the US,” said Graham Thom, Refugee Coordinator at Amnesty International Australia.

“Amnesty International acknowledges the US for giving people a genuine chance at settling and restarting their lives in a safe place but for the sake of those still living in the harmful conditions on Nauru and Manus we are urging the US to take as many people off these islands as possible.”

“The fact also remains that the Australian Government’s ‘solution’ won’t ensure safety for everyone, and we are yet again calling on the Australian Government to ensure that not a single person is left behind on Manus and Nauru.

“Australia has focused its efforts on cruelty rather than allowing people to rebuild their lives in safety. The fairest and quickest way to ensure safety for all remains bringing them to Australia immediately to process their asylum claims and welcome refugees into our community.”

Marriage Equality as a human right: We’re glad of Gladys Berejiklian’s support

“Amnesty International Australia welcomes NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s strong statement recognising marriage equality as a human right and calling for a Yes vote to remove discrimination against our community under law,” Amnesty International Australia’s New South Wales LGBTQI Network convenor Lizzi Price said.

“The LGBTQI community is working hard to look after each other at this time, and public statements by leaders who also believe in equality, in human rights, in fairness, in family and in love are really important to us.”