 |
| Special Adviser for Myanmar Vijay Nambiar. UN Photo |
‘Myanmar must recognise Rohingyas as citizens’
Vijay Nambiar of India served as the United Nations’ special
advisor on Myanmar from January 2012 to December 2016. In this capacity, he
played a key role in supporting Myanmar’s transition to democracy. He was also
the main UN voice on the Rohingya issue. Previously, he served as chief of
staff of the former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, a position he held from
2007 to 2012. A member of the Indian Foreign Service, Nambiar served as his
country’s ambassador to Pakistan, China and Afghanistan.
Prothom Alo’s special correspondent for the US Hasan Ferdous
spoke to him on Sunday in New York.
Prothom Alo: You have visited the
Rakhaine State several times. How would you describe the situation there?
Vijay Nambiar: I have not been to the
Rakhaine State for quite some time, certainly not since 9 October 2016. After
the 2012 violence (against the Rohingya Muslims), I was the first international
(person) to visit the place. I also inspected the camps in Mongdaw, where the
“boat people” rescued from the sea were given shelter. Thus, I have seen the desperation as well as
the complexities of the issue. During the (previous military government), I had
been trying to impress them that unless they were more sensitive and tackled
the problem in terms of their root causes, including citizenship and status, there
was a danger that the situation could be further radicalised.
PA: I believe, after your last
visit, you said there have been targeted killings.
VN: No, not after the last visit.
I did say of targeted killings after the 2012 visit. That year in October,
there were some targeted killings. It was very difficult to distinguish between
common civilians and others. Due to
this, there was a danger of targeted killing.
PA: The international presses
have reported extensively about looting, burning and even incidents of rape,
not just in the past but now.
VN: Yes, but these have also been
denied by the local people. It was very difficult to get accurate information
which could be verified independently. Much of the information has been
filtered through the government, and the government has fiercely denied such
accusations, especially rape. We got
some reliable information from outside, which said there were no reports of
rape, initially for the first few weeks. Then suddenly these reports started
appearing. I do agree, as repercussions, there could be attacks against women
and children. But whether these were deliberate, I have not been able to
independently confirm.
PA: The head of UNHCR in Dhaka
called the military action against the Rohingyas “genocide”.
VN: No, he did not. He did say
there was ethnic cleansing, but did not use the word genocide. UNHCR later said
it was his personal view and did not reflect the position of the organisation.
PA: Are you saying that things
have got better?
VN: There has not been an
escalation of violence, although the security forces feel threats of attack
against them still remain. Therefore,
the lockdown they have imposed in the area has continued. Even though they have
said the media and some of the agencies would be allowed to go in. It has been
kind of an up and down situation. There
is effectively a lockdown, and the local people continue to face anxiety and
uncertainty. They are simply frightened,
they are worried how long this would continue.
I think there is a need for the government to take pro-active action to
reassure the local community. While they can legitimately take action against
those who pose a security threat, that should not be visited on the entire
population. And the civilian population
needs assurance that they would be protected.
PA: You briefed the Security
Council on 17 November. Some reports say you advised the council members to go
easy on Myanmar.
VN: No, I did not say that. What
I said was that the lady (Aung San Suu Kyi) said she needed space and time, and
I said, yes, she needed time and space to address the issue. When she was at
the United Nations in September last year, she assured her support for human
rights and dignity for all the people in the country. She said she would stand
firm against violence and intolerance. She reiterated her faith in fundamental
human rights and dignity of human persons. She, in my view, is capable of
taking action that would change the situation. She has the moral authority and
political clout to bring about necessary change. If anything can be done, it
has to be done by the government and by her.
I personally feel that she would do the right thing if she is given the
confidence by the people.
PA: What about the army? Does she
(Suu Kyi) enjoy support from the army in dealing with the situation?
VN: At the moment, the military
is looking at it purely as a security threat. After all, every hammer looks for
a nail. There has to be some pressure on the military to look at the larger
political dynamics, not purely as a threat.
At the moment, I don’t think Aung San Suu Kyi is in a position to push
the military far enough. But if anybody can do it, in my view, it is Suu Kyi.
She would do the right thing.
PA: The government has formed an
investigation team that has already denied any religious persecution.
VN: I think there is still
institutionalised discrimination inside the country. The current situation (of
not granting the Rohingyas citizenship) has created a (dangerous) situation.
The constitution itself recognises 135 ethnic groups. There has been recognition -- by Aung San and
her father -- that there is a need for the country to come together as a
nation. (Unfortunately) there is still strong resistance among the majority
groups against smaller minority groups, and they need to overcome this.
PA: Former secretary general Kofi
Annan who recently visited Myanmar seemed very soft on the government.
VN: I agree with him on some of
his positions, both in terms of complexity of the issue and for the country,
especially its leadership, to raise its moral voice to reassure the minority
community and to allow greater access to humanitarian assistance and the media.
I also agree with him that a resolution has to be found through a political process. It should be done through soft pressure. I
don’t think that using such labels like ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ can
help. These charges cannot be thrown around loosely. Even some senior US state
department officials have said unless handled carefully, the situation could be
infested with extremists. All efforts
must be made to avoid the situation getting worse.
PA: Can you explain the issue of
radicalisation?
VN: I think the situation can be
handled better if looked at it politically. If the local population continues
to feel beleaguered and desperate, then it becomes a fertile ground for
radicalisation.
PA: What about a regional
approach?
VN: The first regional approach
has been through ASEAN. The Bali Process -- adopted in 2002 and supported by 48
countries to deal with the refugee crisis -- can be a useful tool. The approach
that Malaysia has taken -- of sending a flotilla -- does not seem to be
productive. On the other hand, Indonesia
has been working with Myanmar over the months and beyond, after the 2012
events. They have been actively sending various humanitarian assistances.
More importantly, it should be between Bangladesh and
Myanmar to discuss bilaterally. I understand the government of Myanmar has said
it would send a deputy minister to Dhaka for meetings, and they are looking for
a time when this could take place. The
UN is also sending its Special Rapporteur (on the situation of human rights in
Myanmar) Yanghee Lee.
PA: What would be your advice to
the government of Bangladesh?
VN: I think Bangladesh has so far
been very constructive. It has been very careful of not allowing the situation
to aggravate. At the same time, I understand they are under pressure due to the
influx of refugees. As their number goes
up, there would inevitably be pressure to give them (the refugees) humanitarian
assistance and protection which over time could become not possible for
Bangladesh. There has to be a bilateral agreement on resettling the refugees
back in Myanmar. I believe that this was done (successfully) in the 1990s.
PA: So, where do we go from here
and what would be the action plan?
VN: The first thing that needs to be done by the government of
Myanmar -- from people at the top leadership position - is to reassure the
people of the northern state of Rakhine, particularly its Muslim community,
that their protection, safety and dignity would be ensured. And wherever there
would be excesses committed, they would be dealt with in an exemplary manner so
that the locals do not feel that they may become victims.
Secondly, there has to be credible way in which (this)
investigation takes place. The people
need to be reassured that all government and security actions would be taken
strictly in accordance with the law and in a transparent way and in a manner in
which the international community is brought into the picture. Unless that happens, there will be lingering
doubts and questions of credibility.
Thirdly, the government has to address the root cause, the
issue of citizenship. I understand the
majority of the Rohingyas have in the past been recognized (as citizens). That
process of reassurance must start soon.
There has to be a sense of assurance among the Rohingyas that the
government recognises them as citizens, and the minority would be given their
due place in the country. Under a unified federal structure, minorities need to
be given the assurance that they are as much part of the country as the
rest. This would create a sense of
ownership and they would have participation in the governance of the country.
PA: Do you see a role for the UN?
VN: The UN is willing to play a
role, but it has to be dealt with nationally. If the international community is
involved -- either through the UN or regional organisations -- the credibility
of the political process would be enhanced and this could lead to the
resolution of the problem.
