Interview: Bob Rae on the Rohingya Crisis

By Rinna Diamantakos and Madhurie Dhanrajh 

As of August of 2017, over 600,000 Rohignya had fled their home in the Rahkine State in Myanmar for the neighbouring country of Bangladesh. Today, it is estimated that there are nearly 1 million Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh, all of whom have been expelled from their homes due to state violence and persecution. This crisis has been referred by some as a form of genocide, as the Rohingya make up a distinct cultural group within Myanmar, one that has historically faced oppression and discrimination. Since 2012, Myanmar has been under a form of military occupation, though the Myanmar Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, has denied all claims of military occupation and genocide. 

In 2018, former NDP Premier Bob Rae published a report on behalf of Prime Minister Trudeau's Special Envoy to Myanmar, focusing on the history of this crisis and the importance of both Canadian and International intervention. At the start of 2020, the International Court of Justice ordered Myanmar to take all measures necessary to prevent the continuation of violence, however many experts believe that the position taken by the ICJ was not strong enough to make impactful change. 

Mindful Editor-in-Chief, Rinna Diamantakos, and Trinity One Peer Reviewer, Madhurie Dhanrajh, sat down with Bob Rae to learn about his experiences visiting and researching Myanmar and to get his opinion the recent ICJ decision. 

Rinna Diamantakos (RD): The ICJ has recently ordered Myanmar to 'take all measures within its power' to prevent genocide, but will give them 4 months to report back on how they're doing with it. Considering there's no way to enforce this order, what are your thoughts on this ruling? How do you see this playing out?

Bob Rae (BR): Well I think there's a couple of things about the court decision that are important. The first one is that, they rejected the argument from Myanmar that they didn't have jurisdiction and that there was not a prima facie case of genocide, and that the case was brought in properly and shouldn't be heard, basically. When going into the period of waiting for the decision, I've always tried to say to people that it's important to remember that the court taking jurisdiction is important enough as a step. The fact that they added to it by accepting most of the recommendations on what were the provisional measures being asked for is a positive sign. I think it means that we've got on the accountability issue more broadly, we've got the court of justice which says bring it on, let's hear the case and in the meantime, we're watching you and we're watching what's going on, and we don't buy your arguments that there's nothing to any of this stuff. We've also got the international criminal court, which is also based in the Hague but a different organization, which has agreed to continue to take step by step approach to the issue of forcible deportation because that's one area where they think they might have jurisdiction. Plus we've got the accountability unit in Geneva which has been set up with a prosecutor that's moving forward on gathering evidence.

So as painfully slow as this process is, and I totally appreciate the frustration that people feel, we're making progress on this question of accountability. And it's never easy to do because the stakes are very high and obviously the arguments will be resisted by the people who have control over a lot of the facts. I understand the frustration of how the court can't actually impose a decision, but that's true in a lot of situations where courts say, don't do this, and if people do it then you hold them in contempt, but the fact is that the court is taking jurisdiction, and i think that's the key bit.

Madhurie Dhanrajh (MD): There have been claims by Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh that the international community is failing to include them in the conversation and is instead implementing their own ideal policies and programs. Do you think that the actions of international organizations such as the UNHRC have been satisfactory or do you think that more can be done to include the Rohingya in the conversation?

BR: Well it's certainly a cornerstone of Canadian policy, and I've certainly talked about it in my report, in all of my reports to the government, that involving the Rohingya and putting the interests and the voices of the Rohingya at the centre of the issue is a critical part of public policy. And I think the UN and NGOs are struggling to do that. It's a challenge because you have a million people who are living in a camp, who have been badly traumatized by their experience, and are now kind of coming forward step by step to take command of the issues. And certainly I'm in favour of that. I think there's always going to be a challenge for a lot of organizations who are trying to help people in these difficult circumstances to figure out ways of putting the voices of the Rohingya at the centre of the issue. And that's certainly been the approach that I've recommended to our own government, for example.

RD: You mentioned in your 2018 report, a Rohingya population in central Rakhine that has been subject to what is, in effect, a military occupation since 2012. How can the international community prevent the human rights abuses in this area with consideration to Myanmar's sovereignty?

BR: Well, the whole premise of international law is that sovereignty is not absolute. And in this area of humanitarian law and human rights law internationally, the establishment of the international criminal court, previously after the genocide convention, all these things are based on the premise that the state can't be completely irresponsible and has to carry on respecting basic human rights and international norms and their obligations. We've all signed up for this. I think the frustrating part, if enforcement means you have a police force you can call on and you can send them anywhere and they can enforce the law, then no we don't have those enforcement powers. But we're trying to get there. And also we have to recognize the fact that as a practical matter there are sanctions as a possibility, there are various forms of economic pressure, and ultimately as we saw in Kosovo and in other examples, the international police move in in an armed way. And I think In this situation it is very difficult for that to happen in part because of the military position of the government of Myanmar, but also because of the attitude and willingness to consider the possibility of armed intervention by all of the neighbouring countries including China, including Thailand, including India. As a practical matter it makes it hard to just send in troops. Where are they going to come from? Where are they going to be based? How is it gonna work?

MR: Do you think Bangladesh is doing its best to accommodate the refugees given the social, political and financial pressure put on them, as well as the challenges faced by the local population with this new influx of refugees?

BR: The arrival of a million people on the doorstep of the poorest region of Bangladesh is very difficult, and it's important for us to realize the extent of the challenge for the local community. Having been to the camp a number of times, you can see there are people living where there were no people living before, or where there was a smaller community, whose position and situation has been completely changed. So I think that Bangladesh's response in saying you can stay and we'll figure out how to make sure we've got the help to allow people to live, has been very positive. I think it's been politically difficult for the government of Bangladesh to accept the ongoing reality that these refugees will not resettled in their own country immediately, because the area that they have come from is a conflict zone and is becoming even more of a conflict zone because of the other disputes that are going on between the Arakan army and the Tatmadaw. That puts a different level of burden on Bangladesh. They've made some positive moves this last month in allowing for greater education and more services like that to happen, and we're continuing to work closely with the government of Bangladesh on this.

RD: Bangladesh has just announced an education program in Rohingya camps for children between the ages of 11 and 13, as a method of preventing a lost generation. How do you think this decision will affect the Rohingya population as a whole? What other steps do you think the Bangladeshi government should take to support the Rohingya people?

BR: I think education is a key step, because Canada has been advocating along with a number of other countries to say that this has to become part of the refugee experience. You can't have no education. Many of them came out of circumstances in Rakhine where they didn't have much access to education either. So there's a lot to be done and it's a huge challenge.

The other problem is that the government of Bangladesh for security reasons has made it more difficult for people to communicate with the outside world. But in today's world, a lot of education happens online and it happens on your cell phone. So if you don't have access to your cell phone, you've got a problem. That's another issue we have to contend with. So those two things together I think make for a challenging reality as to how we improve it.

I think the two other key steps that will have to be taken eventually - one of them has to do with more access to training as well as education, and the big one of course, is work. It's really tough when people can't work because it means that they have no source of income, and that's really challenging for families. So we have to work with the government of Bangladesh on creating an economic model or plan that includes both the home and host communities as well as the refugees.

MR: There is a common perception that Aung San Suu Kyi is the de facto leader of Myanmar because of her win in the election despite her position as Minister of Foreign Affairs. In your report, you agreed with the idea of 'two governments' in Myanmar, military and civilian. How does this complicate the crisis and who in the international community should be held culpable?

BR: Well I think the question of culpability is going to be a matter of evidence being produced that shows what was the pattern of command and what was the process of internal accountability as far as how the decision was made. For most of us on the outside it's pretty opaque in terms of what happened and who ordered what, and how did people deal with political consequences and humanitarian consequences of the decision that was made to engage in direct military combat against the Rohingya. I think that Aung San Suu Kyi obviously is an important political figure in the country. The fact is that the most important ministries of the governments are controlled by the military, the ones that have access to the most money and also have access to major infrastructure throughout the country. But she did win an election, her party did win an election, and obviously there's an ongoing political discussion going on between them, the civilian government and the military government, and we're kind of caught in the middle of it, and I suspect that that so is she. But she certainly, I think, made an effort in her statement in The Hague to stress the fact that she was there as the spokesman for the country and so if she's taking responsibility as a spokesman for the country, then she has to take responsibility in front of the court. She took responsibility in front of the court, saying I'm here as a spokesman for the government of Myanmar, but it needs to be understood that she doesn't hold all the cards.

RD: There are claims that Aung San Suu Kyi's unwillingness to acknowledge the claims made by refugees is based in the cultural perspective that the Rohingya are "devious" and "untrustworthy." How do you think these cultural beliefs have exacerbated the conflict and how will it affect the possible repatriation of the Rohingya population?

BR: Well it's pretty hard to go to Myanmar and talk to people and not feel that the Rohingya are seen as, first, as outsiders who are not a part of sort of the official family of Myanmar, and secondly, that they are relatively uneducated, and they are seen by many in open conversation, as inferior. So there's no doubt that racism is a major factor, and that cultural attitudes produce that kind of racism. I haven't been present where Aung Sang Suu Kyi said anything overtly racist but I do think that it's a real political challenge for the world to find the basis for a resolution of the conflict that doesn't deal candidly with the problem of race or racism, because it's a part of the problem.

MR: Why is it so difficult to define genocide in the context of the Rohingya crisis? Do you think that the definition of genocide is too narrow?

I believe that that when you look at the genocide convention you can point to all the elements of this crisis and all the elements of what people have experienced, and not be afraid of using the word genocide. Whether in a legal sense one can prove a genocide is still an open question because obviously you have to find a court and you have to find a court that that understands all the elements and also is prepared to to prove intent. The difficulty with intent is that it requires access to evidence and information which is not easy to find. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not easy to find, and I think that's one of the reasons why a lot of lawyers will say, well yes it could be genocide, but we don't know. We don't know all of the elements that have led to it but do we have enough evidence? And I think the conclusion of the UN human rights fact-finding mission was there's enough there to get you in the door in terms of making the argument about genocide. Personally, the way in which this case has been taken on steadily, going down one path of looking at the accountability issue, is very positive.

RD: Myanmar established an Independent Commission of Enquiry to investigate atrocities, but have refused to acknowledge the issue as genocide. Do you think that the creation of an internal investigation will be effective or is it a way of appeasing the international community and bypassing claims of genocide?

I think the problem that I have, and many other people have with the ICOE is that they have not been transparent about their methodology. We don't know how they reached their conclusions, we don't know on what basis they did, we don't know what evidence they collected, they have not quoted from it widely. We just don't know. And so the only thing that's been released publicly is a short summary of what they found in saying we find there might be war crimes, there's evidence of abuses, but we can't find evidence of genocide. I don't know any court anywhere that works on that basis. I mean courts say we've heard this evidence, we don't agree with that, we think this is this is truer that other things and then go down the list. So it's not very satisfactory, to put it mildly.

MR: There has been debate on how exactly foreign powers could intervene without further exacerbating the problem and alienating the Rohingya population, but do you think it would be beneficial if powers like Canada and USA intervened in Myanmar, invoking the Responsibility to Protect Act?

BR: The Responsibility to Protect act is pretty clear in that the initial responsibility lies with the host country, so that's the first obligation of the sovereign state, to protect all of our citizens. There has to be an attempt to find a regional response and only then do we look more globally. I think that we have to sort of see the world as in a very early stage of trying to figure out how can we mobilize international institutions to deal with major human rights abuses, and we need to see it as part of a historical process. We're just beginning in terms of creating sufficient strength and sufficient infrastructure to actually take the steps that will say, well, we need to know that now we need to intervene. Even more, I think, part of the problem for a country like Canada is that we're quite far away from a conflict. We were present in Myanmar, we were present in Bangladesh. As Canadians, we're spending money investing, trying to build capacity ,trying to find out what's happened and deal with all of those implications. But we also have to work with others in order to be effective, so we've been working hard and trying to build a stronger coalition of countries that are prepared and interested in doing what needs to be done.

RD: Your visit to the Rakhine state, can you elaborate on what that was like? What kind of restrictions did you face from the Myanmar government and how were you able to meet and get testimonies of abuse and violence that named the very perpetrators allowing you to be there?

BR: I was allowed to visit uh the town of Sittwe which is on the coast, which is sort of the capital of Rakhine state. But I was not allowed to visit in the countryside, that was not possible. I was able to fly over the countryside because it was part of a trip that went up into the north part of Rakhine on the border with Bangladesh, and to see some of the things that were being done to prepare for the return of the refugees. And of course, flying over we saw many many burnt out villages and clear evidence people were doing everything they could to destroy the evidence, in terms of bulldozing anything that would happen to make all that clear. I was able to interview people in the refugee camp in Sittwe, the IDP camp, and so I had that opportunity to also talk to the refugees in Bangladesh, so I heard a lot of accounts, stories of what happened, of brutality of rape, of violence. I was pretty overwhelming in terms of the amount, of the numbers of stories and accounts that people told us, so if you can get access to it, it is possible to get people to say what happened.

MR: How do you cope with the horrific stories and experiences that you hear from these refugees in the flesh? You were in tears during your testimony in front of the Senate of human rights. How difficult is it to compartmentalize, and continue living in a country like Canada after having been to places like Rakhine and the refugee camps in Bangladesh?

BR: It is hard but I mean it's also a reminder that we really have no choice. I mean, you can't be unmoved by what you've heard and you can't be unmoved by the level of physical and mental suffering which is been produced by the forceful deportation and by the genocide itself, and by hearing stories not only of the events of August September 2017, but also hearing accounts of the kinds of challenges that people are facing in their lives over a long period of time. This discrimination did not start in 2017, it has been going on for quite a long time. And it's no different frankly, than being in Canada and experiencing, seeing, feeling - there is a lot of unfairness and there's a lot of harshness in how people are treated, and carrying on and doing the work that we all we all do in a variety of ways. It is personally challenging. I say to people it is very hard to see the world in exactly the same way as you might have without actually going there and talking to people, and seeing the conditions and circumstances. But on the other hand, you're no use to helping people to find a solution to this if you're so traumatized by that experience that you can't go in and become an effective advocate.

RD: In your report you provided some recommendations on how the Canadian government should proceed in this conflict. What do you think is the most important step the government should take to ameliorate the problem?

MR: I think the most important step for the government - and I think they really embraced this notion - is that we have to be prepared to step up and we have to be prepared to help to lead our way through this crisis, not alone and not leading way ahead of everybody miles away, but just working with people to say we have to pay real attention to this issue and stay focused, and understand that it's going to take time. It's not going to be resolved quickly, so you have to prepare for an immediate response and then understand that this is a longer term issue that requires a longer term response, and those things all go together.

MR: What can the Canadian population do to support this global crisis from a domestic scale?

BR: The first thing that the public needs to do is learn about it, become knowledgeable, and read the history, listen to the different accounts, follow the legal arguments that are being made, political arguments that are being made, and just take an interest. One of the challenges we face in the world today is this whole question of focus and mindfulness. Are we able to focus for more than 20 seconds on any one subject? I think that's something which we all have to learn how to do because it's a very important. It's the lack of sustained attention is is a real problem and that's something we all have to deal with.

Bob Rae's report can be found at: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/response_conflict-reponse_conflits/crisis-crises/rep_sem-rap_esm.aspx?lang=eng