Saif
Senior Member
- Jan 24, 2024
- 12,724
- 7,061
- Origin
- Residence
- Axis Group
- Copy to clipboard
- Thread starter
- #205

Yunus’s UN proposal to resolve Rohingya crisis
UPON publication of the report by the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State led by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan in August 2017, there should not have been any debate over the Rohingya people’s nationality and citizenship issues. According to media reports, in 2017, Myanmar and...

Yunus’s UN proposal to resolve Rohingya crisis
Sorowar Chowdhury 05 December, 2024, 21:27
New Age
UPON publication of the report by the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State led by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan in August 2017, there should not have been any debate over the Rohingya people’s nationality and citizenship issues. According to media reports, in 2017, Myanmar and Bangladesh signed an agreement regarding the repatriation of the stranded Rohingya people, which was supposed to start from January 2018. In contrast to Bangladesh’s proposal of 15,000 Rohingya repatriations per week, Myanmar agreed to accept 1,500 initially and to increase the rate at a three-month review, with the repatriation of 740,000 Rohingyas, who had taken shelter in Bangladesh in 2016 and 2017, supposed to have been completed within two years. Little progress has been made so far, however.
Considering this backdrop, the chief adviser to Bangladesh’s interim government, Professor Yunus, should be commended for his recent appeal to the United Nations. On September 24, 2024, requesting a pragmatic solution to the Rohingya crisis, he presented a three-point proposal at the UN General Assembly’s sideline session. His first proposal requested that the UN Secretary-General organise a conference on the Rohingya crisis, inviting all stakeholders at the soonest possible opportunity. In this regard, Myanmar’s obligation to uphold the rights of the Rohingya people warrants further discussion.
Firstly, the Rohingya people have been living in Myanmar for at least several generations. They should not be considered stateless. Rather, they should be regarded with honour and dignity. Articles 1, 2, 3, 5 and 15 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) ensure every person’s basic human rights, including living with dignity, freedom and non-coercion. Moreover, Article 15 of the same declaration affirms that every person has the right to a nationality and that no one can be arbitrarily denied this. Myanmar was one of the first 48 countries that voted in support of that declaration in 1948.
Secondly, even if considered stateless, as they have been rendered by Myanmar’s 1982 citizenship law, the Rohingya people cannot remain the victims of discrimination. In this respect, the UN Conventions on Statelessness (1954) and the Reduction of Statelessness (1961) may be mentioned. Article 3 of the 1954 Convention ensures non-discrimination and Article 1 of the 1961 Convention ensures ‘citizenship at birth’ to a child who would ‘otherwise be stateless’. Although Myanmar is not a party to either of these two conventions, being a UN member state, Myanmar does need to comply with the ‘non-discrimination’ terms of the UN Declaration (1948) mentioned above. Further, it also needs to comply with the ‘citizenship at birth’ terms, which fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (mentioned later).
Thirdly, Myanmar has ratified and/or accessed (both have the same legal effect) several other UN conventions and/or protocols relevant to today’s discussion. For example, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, and the International Labour Organisation’s Forced Labour Convention (1930). Researchers and historians mention that the Rohingya people are the victims of forced labour, and many of the women are the victims of abuse. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime defines human trafficking as involving three key components: the ‘what’ (such as recruitment, transportation, and transfer), the ‘how’ (which includes methods like threat, coercion, or abduction), and the ‘why’ (typically for purposes such as sexual exploitation or forced labour). In light of these elements, the treatment of the Rohingya people, both in the recent past and historical contexts, can be classified as trafficking in persons. This treatment represents a violation of multiple international conventions, specifically non-compliance with Article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Article 1.1 of the Forced Labour Convention, and the failure to conform to the objectives outlined in Article 2a and 2b of the Trafficking in Persons Protocol. In principle, Myanmar is obligated under these international agreements to treat the Rohingya people in a manner consistent with the protections established by these conventions.
Additionally, Myanmar is a state party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1951). The UN and leading international rights bodies, including Amnesty International and Fortify Rights, termed the 2017 killing of the Rohingya as ethnic cleansing and/or genocide. Global humanitarian and state actors may therefore take necessary steps to ensure Myanmar follows its obligations in compliance with Article 1 of this convention and thereby prevents genocide. It is Myanmar’s responsibility to establish conditions that encourage the Rohingya people living in Bangladeshi camps to opt for voluntary repatriation.
Finally, considering the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), children should in no way be the victims of any persecution. It was made evident by the media that the dead bodies of innocent children were floating on the Naf River during the 2017 massacre carried out by the Myanmar army. The UNCRC Articles 7 and 8 ensure every child’s identity, protection, and nationality ‘immediately after birth’. Myanmar became a state party to the UNCRC in 1991. Additionally, Article 7 asserts that the national law of signatory states should be guided by relevant international instruments, especially when there is the possibility of a child ‘otherwise becom[ing] stateless’. This convention makes it clear that states do not need to wait for the child to attain adulthood to claim citizenship.
On behalf of the people of Bangladesh, we would urge the UN Secretary-General to honour Professor Yunus’ call and take necessary measures to organise an all-stakeholders’ conference at the soonest possible time. Indeed, the conference could bring a ground-breaking opportunity to resolve this protracted crisis by converging refugee and non-refugee actors and ensuring healthy debates among all. Furthermore, it would facilitate the creation of Rohingya leadership, who could be the most active and agile advocates to make their voices heard in bringing the crisis to an end.
We would like to see the UN’s effective facilitating role in revitalising the repatriation deal from Myanmar’s side. We also expect that the Rohingya people will be treated in compliance with the relevant UN conventions. We do believe that these people’s human rights should be upheld and that they should thereby be able to live with freedom and dignity, whether living in Myanmar or returning from Bangladesh under the repatriation process.
Sorowar Chowdhury is a Rohingya researcher and a doctoral candidate at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.
Sorowar Chowdhury 05 December, 2024, 21:27
New Age
UPON publication of the report by the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State led by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan in August 2017, there should not have been any debate over the Rohingya people’s nationality and citizenship issues. According to media reports, in 2017, Myanmar and Bangladesh signed an agreement regarding the repatriation of the stranded Rohingya people, which was supposed to start from January 2018. In contrast to Bangladesh’s proposal of 15,000 Rohingya repatriations per week, Myanmar agreed to accept 1,500 initially and to increase the rate at a three-month review, with the repatriation of 740,000 Rohingyas, who had taken shelter in Bangladesh in 2016 and 2017, supposed to have been completed within two years. Little progress has been made so far, however.
Considering this backdrop, the chief adviser to Bangladesh’s interim government, Professor Yunus, should be commended for his recent appeal to the United Nations. On September 24, 2024, requesting a pragmatic solution to the Rohingya crisis, he presented a three-point proposal at the UN General Assembly’s sideline session. His first proposal requested that the UN Secretary-General organise a conference on the Rohingya crisis, inviting all stakeholders at the soonest possible opportunity. In this regard, Myanmar’s obligation to uphold the rights of the Rohingya people warrants further discussion.
Firstly, the Rohingya people have been living in Myanmar for at least several generations. They should not be considered stateless. Rather, they should be regarded with honour and dignity. Articles 1, 2, 3, 5 and 15 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) ensure every person’s basic human rights, including living with dignity, freedom and non-coercion. Moreover, Article 15 of the same declaration affirms that every person has the right to a nationality and that no one can be arbitrarily denied this. Myanmar was one of the first 48 countries that voted in support of that declaration in 1948.
Secondly, even if considered stateless, as they have been rendered by Myanmar’s 1982 citizenship law, the Rohingya people cannot remain the victims of discrimination. In this respect, the UN Conventions on Statelessness (1954) and the Reduction of Statelessness (1961) may be mentioned. Article 3 of the 1954 Convention ensures non-discrimination and Article 1 of the 1961 Convention ensures ‘citizenship at birth’ to a child who would ‘otherwise be stateless’. Although Myanmar is not a party to either of these two conventions, being a UN member state, Myanmar does need to comply with the ‘non-discrimination’ terms of the UN Declaration (1948) mentioned above. Further, it also needs to comply with the ‘citizenship at birth’ terms, which fall under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (mentioned later).
Thirdly, Myanmar has ratified and/or accessed (both have the same legal effect) several other UN conventions and/or protocols relevant to today’s discussion. For example, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, and the International Labour Organisation’s Forced Labour Convention (1930). Researchers and historians mention that the Rohingya people are the victims of forced labour, and many of the women are the victims of abuse. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime defines human trafficking as involving three key components: the ‘what’ (such as recruitment, transportation, and transfer), the ‘how’ (which includes methods like threat, coercion, or abduction), and the ‘why’ (typically for purposes such as sexual exploitation or forced labour). In light of these elements, the treatment of the Rohingya people, both in the recent past and historical contexts, can be classified as trafficking in persons. This treatment represents a violation of multiple international conventions, specifically non-compliance with Article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Article 1.1 of the Forced Labour Convention, and the failure to conform to the objectives outlined in Article 2a and 2b of the Trafficking in Persons Protocol. In principle, Myanmar is obligated under these international agreements to treat the Rohingya people in a manner consistent with the protections established by these conventions.
Additionally, Myanmar is a state party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1951). The UN and leading international rights bodies, including Amnesty International and Fortify Rights, termed the 2017 killing of the Rohingya as ethnic cleansing and/or genocide. Global humanitarian and state actors may therefore take necessary steps to ensure Myanmar follows its obligations in compliance with Article 1 of this convention and thereby prevents genocide. It is Myanmar’s responsibility to establish conditions that encourage the Rohingya people living in Bangladeshi camps to opt for voluntary repatriation.
Finally, considering the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), children should in no way be the victims of any persecution. It was made evident by the media that the dead bodies of innocent children were floating on the Naf River during the 2017 massacre carried out by the Myanmar army. The UNCRC Articles 7 and 8 ensure every child’s identity, protection, and nationality ‘immediately after birth’. Myanmar became a state party to the UNCRC in 1991. Additionally, Article 7 asserts that the national law of signatory states should be guided by relevant international instruments, especially when there is the possibility of a child ‘otherwise becom[ing] stateless’. This convention makes it clear that states do not need to wait for the child to attain adulthood to claim citizenship.
On behalf of the people of Bangladesh, we would urge the UN Secretary-General to honour Professor Yunus’ call and take necessary measures to organise an all-stakeholders’ conference at the soonest possible time. Indeed, the conference could bring a ground-breaking opportunity to resolve this protracted crisis by converging refugee and non-refugee actors and ensuring healthy debates among all. Furthermore, it would facilitate the creation of Rohingya leadership, who could be the most active and agile advocates to make their voices heard in bringing the crisis to an end.
We would like to see the UN’s effective facilitating role in revitalising the repatriation deal from Myanmar’s side. We also expect that the Rohingya people will be treated in compliance with the relevant UN conventions. We do believe that these people’s human rights should be upheld and that they should thereby be able to live with freedom and dignity, whether living in Myanmar or returning from Bangladesh under the repatriation process.
Sorowar Chowdhury is a Rohingya researcher and a doctoral candidate at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.