US embassy cable - 03ROME3583

UNCLAS  ROME 003583 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
AIDAC 
 
FROM U.S. MISSION IN ROME 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR A/S PRM DEWEY, IO A/S HOLMES, EUR/NE, EUR/WE, 
SA/INS, IO/EDA SKOTOK 
USDA/FAS FOR U/S PENN, MCHAMBLISS, RTILSWORTH AND LPANASUK 
USAID FOR ADMINISTRATOR NATSIOS, AA/DCHA WINTER, AA/ANE, 
D/DCHA/OFDA BMCCONNELL, D/DCHA/FFP LANDIS 
BRUSSELS FOR USAID/PLERNER 
USUN FOR MLUTZ 
GENEVA FOR AMBASSADOR MOLEY, RMA/LYNCH AND USAID/KYLOH 
NSC FOR JDWORKEN 
 
E.O.  12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAID, EAGR, AORC, PREF, KUNR, WFP, UN 
SUBJECT:  Increasing pressure on the Rohingya refugees in 
Cox's Bazar, southern Bangladesh to return to Burma - 
"(We're) caught between a crocodile and a snake" (Burmese 
refugee quoted in an MSF Holland report, 2003) 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY. 
NOT SUITABLE FOR INTERNET POSTING. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
1. (SBU) US/Mission Rome Humanitarian Attache visited two 
UNHCR-managed Rohingya refugee camps on July 29-30 - 
Kutupalong and Nayapara - located in Teknaf Thana (Cox's 
Bazar district, at the southernmost tip of Bangladesh 
directly bordering Burma) which house approximately 20,000 
Burmese Muslims from Arakan (Rakhine) State in western 
Burma. He found increasing pressure tactics being employed 
by camp authorities and local officials to accelerate 
repatriation efforts, an attempt to marginalize the role of 
UNHCR's two most prominent international NGO partners (MSF- 
Holland and Irish Concern), and the UNHCR's in-country team 
in a phase-down, overtaken by events mode. He also observed 
a "make-shift camp/slum" located in the center of Teknaf 
town, occupied by approximately 4,500 Rohingya people dubbed 
"illegal intruders" who have been living there for the past 
8-9 months under abominable conditions and who receive 
virtually no assistance. End summary. 
 
---------- 
Background 
---------- 
 
2. (SBU) US Mission/Rome Humanitarian Attache Tim Lavelle 
visited two UNHCR-managed Rohingya refugee camps on July 29- 
30 - Kutupalong and Nayapara - located in Teknaf Thana 
(Cox's Bazar district, southern Bangladesh) which house 
approximately 20,000 Burmese Muslims from Arakan (Rakhine) 
State in western Burma. The Rohingyas in these camps (more 
than twenty such camps were established in the early 1990's 
which are now down to two) are officially recognized as 
refugees by UNHCR, which is directly responsible for their 
survival and safety. 
 
3. (SBU) In the period 1991-1992, approximately 250,000 
Rohingya Muslims left Burma, victims of large-scale 
repression at that time. In addition to the camp populations 
cited above, an estimated minimum of 100,000 Rohingya 
presently live in the Cox's Bazar region and are considered 
illegal immigrants by the Bangladeshi government. This 
latter group has no rights, and no substantive help or 
assistance from anyone. 
 
4. (SBU) Both at present and historically, there is a clear 
policy of discrimination against the Rohingya in Burma. As 
per the 2002 State Department's Country Report on Human 
Rights in Burma: "Members of the Rohingya Muslim minority in 
Rakhine State, on the country's western coast, continued to 
experience severe legal, economic, and social 
discrimination. The Government (has) denied citizenship to 
most Rohingya on the grounds that their ancestors did not 
reside in the country at the start of British colonial rule 
in 1824, as required by the country's highly restrictive 
citizenship law."  Human Rights Watch (in their July 2002 
Report entitled "Crackdown on Burmese Muslims") commented: 
"In Arakan state, a predominately Muslim area, human rights 
violations, including forced labor, restrictions on freedom 
of movement, and the destruction of mosques, have been 
commonplace." Note: US Mission officer met in Teknaf with an 
 
MSF-Holland (MSF-H) representative based in Arakan State who 
confirmed that these egregious practices were continuing - 
in addition to imposition of large "fees" for marriage and 
birth registration ("there are lots of villages where no one 
has married for several years"), arbitrary taxation, opaque 
licensing and monopoly schemes linked to land and water 
access, and frequent curfews. End note. 
 
5. (SBU) Reportedly in the first visit by the Burma Head of 
State to Bangladesh (Dhaka) in 20 years in December 2002, 
the subject of repatriation of Rohingyas was discussed. In 
April 2003 in Geneva, the Bangladeshi Foreign Secretary 
(Samser Mobin Chowdhury) reiterated Bangladesh's support to 
all efforts for Burmese refugees remaining in Bangladesh to 
return promptly to their homeland. Over the last several 
months, the Burmese Government has sent signals that all 
"constraints" on refugee return are now "off" and that 
authorities will now accept all refugee claims at "face 
value." 
 
------------------------- 
Whither UNHCR Bangladesh? 
------------------------- 
 
6. (SBU) UNHCR did a survey in Bangladesh at the end of 2002 
which concluded that the majority of refugees in the Teknaf 
camps did not want to return for a variety of reasons. Some 
5,000 expressed interest in returning but cited 
"complications." UNHCR Bangladesh then proceeded to produce 
(December 23) a concept paper (which still, in US Mission's 
understanding, remains in draft) entitled "Self-Sufficiency 
of Refugees From Northern Rakhine State of Myanmar in 
Bangladesh." This paper apparently commented on how refugees 
could be helped toward self-reliance using as a guiding 
principle the concept of Temporary Settlement (TS) in local 
Bangladeshi communities for refugees who would not opt for 
immediate repatriation. 
 
7. (SBU) Despite "scuttling" early on the TS idea as a non- 
starter, given the improved bilateral climate between the 
two concerned governments, UNHCR verbally promulgated a 
rolling strategy several months later which involved a phase- 
out of UNHCR material assistance by the end of 2003; and 
informed its two principal NGO partners (MSF-H and Irish 
Concern) of UNHCR's unilateral decision to have both NGOs 
hand over their respective health programs (health care for 
children under ten, including supplementary and therapeutic 
feeding) by July 1 to the Government's Ministry of Health 
(MOH). Note: At the time of the visit, the handover date had 
slipped to August 1, but it was evident that the MOH is not 
in a position to assume this substantive NGO workload any 
time soon. End note. 
 
8. (SBU) Additional note. In a subsequent meeting in Dhaka 
(July 31) with the UNHCR Country Representative, Ms. Machiko 
Kondo, US Mission was informed that UNHCR was motivated to 
hand over its Rohingya camp health activities to the MOH in 
part based upon a 2002 recommendation of  UNHCR's External 
Auditor who apparently concluded that, with a reduced case 
load in the camps (compared with the 1990s) - the district 
MOH would be up to the task. Ms. Kondo also saw greater MOH 
involvement as an integral part of UNHCR's self-sufficiency 
approach. End additional note. 
 
9. (SBU) Ms. Kondo also informed US Mission that the latest 
AIDAC 
 
FROM U.S. MISSION IN ROME 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR A/S PRM DEWEY, IO A/S HOLMES, EUR/NE, EUR/WE, 
SA/INS, IO/EDA SKOTOK 
USDA/FAS FOR U/S PENN, MCHAMBLISS, RTILSWORTH AND LPANASUK 
USAID FOR ADMINISTRATOR NATSIOS, AA/DCHA WINTER, A 
 
iteration of the "self-sufficiency" strategy was presently 
under active discussion in UNHCR Headquarters, Geneva. The 
other partners (World Food Program, MSF-H, Irish Concern and 
the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society (BDRCS)- the latter 
supervises food distributions in the camps) - all voiced 
concern over the complete lack of consultation and 
communications in the elaboration of this plan. (Meetings on 
these issues and time frames between UNHCR and its partners 
have been going on since late last year with little 
concluded or agreed upon.)  Both international NGOs saw the 
folding of all health care efforts into the local MOH as a 
quick way of eliminating their "honest broker" efforts on 
behalf of "voluntary repatriation." It was also not clear to 
the US Mission whether this latest draft strategy had even 
been shared with the Bangladesh Government. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
A visit to the two official camps - "Quibbling over the 
definition of coercion" 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
10. (SBU) Walkthroughs (with GOB, UN and NGO personnel) on 
July 29-30 of the officially recognized Kutupalong and 
Nayapara camps (populations of 8,268 and 12,495 Rohingya on 
June 30 respectively) revealed the following: 
 
-There remains high chronic malnutrition in both camps, 
despite an involved and sustained international NGO presence 
over a number of years. Both camps have  supplementary 
(total coverage 1,300 mothers and small children) and 
therapeutic feeding centers (covering 100 acutely 
malnourished children) and WFP has now introduced a primary 
school biscuit snack program for up to 6,000 camp children; 
 
-There is a visible local police presence in both camps, 
which is reinforced by paramilitary cadres. We also came 
across a plain-clothed "enforcer" (adept at crowd control), 
who appeared to be well known and feared by the Nayapara 
camp residents; 
 
-Both of the two Camp-in-Charge GOB officers conveyed that, 
in their view, almost all of the refugees wanted to go back 
(now that the Government of Burma had agreed to their 
return) and that they saw their job as making this happen 
soonest. They stated that the overall goal is to have all 
camp residents repatriated by the end of 2004; 
 
-On the day of the visit, tension was particularly high at 
the Kutupalong camp where several groups of women held up 
banners protesting "bully-boy" tactics and heightened 
(verbal at this point) threats of intimidation. US Mission 
was handed a petition (one of dozens that are reportedly 
generated weekly and given to UN and NGO personnel) which 
contained the following: "The principles of voluntariness in 
repatriation, respecting fundamental principles of the 
refugee law had been/have been/are being excessively 
violated by GOB Camp officials;" 
 
-MSF-H and Irish Concern staff reported that they are now 
starting to receive threatening letters accusing them of 
siding with the "dissidents" who want to block the now 
accelerating repatriation process;S. MISSION IN ROME 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR A/S PRM DEWEY, IO A/S HOLMES, EUR/NE, EUR/WE, 
SA/INS, IO/EDA SKOTOK 
USDA/FAS FOR U/S PENN, MCHAMBLISS, RTILSWORTH AND LPANASUK 
USAID FOR ADMINISTRATOR NATSIOS, AA/DCHA WINTER, AA/ANE, 
D/DCHA/ 
 
-It was clear from viewing MOH facilities and staff in place 
at both camps that they are presently operating on a 
"shoestring" with a modicum of personnel and little 
equipment. 
 
11. (SBU) Note: For our visit, the local UNHCR staff in the 
camps preferred to play the role of "silent backbenchers." 
End note. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
The "makeshift camp/slum" of Rohingya "illegal intruders" in 
Teknaf town 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
12. (SBU) US Mission observed a 3-4 acre "make-shift camp/ 
slum" located in the center of Teknaf town, opposite the 
Thana Executive office. It contains an estimated 4,500 
Rohingyas. There is speculation that many of these are 
refugees who were repatriated by UNHCR over the last years 
and decided to return again (by illegally crossing back into 
Bangladesh). This slum has received little serious attention 
from the UN, the GOB or the NGOs since its emplacement 8-9 
months ago. As per MSF-H, the Thana Executive Officer in 
Teknaf describes these people as "illegal intruders." As per 
the NGOs, this slum came into being as a direct result of a 
GOB military-style operation late last year in the area 
focused on uprooting illegal immigrants ("Operation Clean 
Heart").  This "sweep" was specifically targeted at the 
100,000 "illegal" Rohingyas (the minimum guess) presently 
living in the Cox's Bazar area (outside the official camps). 
The condition of these Rihingya slum dwellers in Teknaf town 
is abominable. When queried, the position of the local UNHCR 
office towards those people is that they are not refugees 
and there is therefore no foreseen or anticipated action, as 
this could trigger further probing as to who these people 
are and so forth. UNHCR confirmed that they had visited the 
"makeshift camp/slum" on several occasions but that no 
assistance had been nor would be provided. From July, the 
GOB deployed a small contingent of local police at the site. 
 
13. (SBU) MSF-H informed that it had obtained tentative 
permission of the GOB's Thana leader to access the camp and 
had been carrying out limited health education for the 
"makeshift camp population," including encouraging them to 
access the government hospital for general treatment or 
other illnesses. The nutritional situation is grim with 
clear and visible signs of acute malnutrition (marasmus), in 
particular among the under-fives (mostly girls). Water for 
the camp is supplied by two government-provided tube wells. 
US Mission was also informed that 10 latrines had been dug 
but that overuse and the present monsoon had rendered them 
unusable. Note: on August 5, US Mission learned from WFP 
Dhaka that the local MOH had agreed to "intervene" in the 
Teknaf slum. End note. 
 
------------------------------- 
Conclusions and Recommendations 
------------------------------- 
 
14. (SBU) It is imperative that all pressure, overt and 
covert, direct and indirect, on the 20,000 official Rohingya 
refugees to repatriate against their will on the part of 
camp and local authorities - cease with immediate effect. 
UNHCR needs to affirm that continued international and localS PENN, 
MCHAMBLISS, RTILSWORTH AND LPANASUK 
USAID FOR ADMINISTRATOR NATSIOS, AA/DCHA WINTER, AA/ANE, 
D/DCHA/OFDA BMCCONNELL, D/DCHA/FFP LANDIS 
BRUSSELS FOR USAID/PLERNER 
USUN FOR MLUTZ 
GENEVA FOR AMBASSADOR MOLEY, RMA/LYNCH AND USAID/ 
 
NGO presence in these camps as "honest brokers" in the 
voluntary repatriation process is critical. 
 
15. (SBU) UNHCR and its UN sister agencies need to recognize 
that, as long as the Government of Burma continues its 
repression towards the people of Arakan in general and the 
Rohingya Muslims in particular, UN engagement in Cox' Bazar 
district will continue and that adequate resources must be 
allotted. 
 
16. (SBU) Any refugee "self-sufficiency plan" developed by 
UNHCR for the remaining residual caseload of 20,000 
Rohingyas - needs to be fully vetted with all key 
counterparts (WFP, MSF-H, Irish Concern, Bangladesh Red 
Crescent, etc) and realistic timeframes mutually agreed upon 
in an open and transparent manner. 
 
17. (SBU) The UN needs to urgently request the Government of 
Bangladesh to allow UN Agencies and NGOs to provide 
humanitarian assistance to the 4,500 Rohingya living in the 
"makeshift camp/slum" in Teknaf town. 
 
18. (SBU) UNHCR is asked to consider an assessment to 
determine the approximate number of Rohingya "illegals" 
living in the Cox's Bazar district, (minimum estimate 
100,000) and suggest a strategy for dealing with them 
because this is not going to go away. 
 
19. (SBU) The UN needs also to move forward with the 
establishment of a code of conduct and standards of behavior 
for its staffs and partners related to protection of 
vulnerable populations for sexual exploitation and abuse as 
mandated by the UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee at its 
fifty-third session in Geneva in July, 2003. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
20. (SBU) UNHCR and its partners have been intimately 
involved with the Rohingyas in Cox's Bazar since 1991-1992, 
the initial exodus of 250,000 refugees who left Burma due to 
acute repression. While the official numbers indicate that, 
over the last decade, 230,000 have returned home, many have 
chosen to re-return to Bangladesh as "illegals" rather than 
deal with the nightmare that is Burma. The remaining 
official "residual" caseload of 20,000 Rohingyas will (in 
our view) return only under increased intimidation, which is 
already evident at the camps. Despite the desire of the GOB 
to come to closure on this long-festering matter, UNHCR has 
to remain the unwavering advocate of those Rohingyas who do 
not choose repatriation. This is not the moment for naivete 
or rosy optimism. As expressed in a refugee petition handed 
to us in the Kutupalong camp on July 29: "Seeing no 
international protection and alternative, we, the 
unfortunate victims of injustice make up our mind to sign up 
the affidavit (the future death trap of Rohingya refugee) 
and go back to Burma with well founded fear of genocide and 
persecution only to escape the physical torture, arbitrary 
arrests, jail custody, expulsion from the camps and 
starvation. We the refugees go back to Burma through one way 
and leave the homes and enter into Bangladesh through 
another way." 
Hall 
 
 
NNNN 
	2003ROME03583 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED