statelessness

Statelessness: the Rohingya people

Who are the Rohingya?

The Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic group of roughly 800 000, claim to have lived in Myanmar for generations. Despite this, they are not recognised by the Myanmar government as an official ethnicity, being seen as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, and have been denied citizenship since 1982, leaving the Rohingya stateless.

Their plight has significantly increased since riots and violence against them rose in the Rakhine state in 2012, and is yet to be resolved, being labelled the most persecuted minority in the world by many human rights groups.

The Lives of Rohingya People

Currently, many Rohingya live in camps for internally displaced people.

Here, their rights are heavily restricted, as they require permission to marry. Unemployment is high, and they must rely on aid from the World Food Programme to eat.

Health and education services are also inadequate. Although the schools in the camps are free, there is not enough money to pay all the teachers, requiring many to volunteer.

Rohingya in the camp told Al Jazeera that doctors are being negligent, and refusing to see them or take their claims seriously.

Rohingya as illegal immigrants in Myanmar

For those that live outside the camps in Sittwe, usually in ghettos, they face the threat of the 969 movement, a main instigator in the recent violence against the Rohingya, which started after Rohingya men were accused of raping a Burmese woman.

Ashin Wirathu is a Buddhist monk who is the leader of the 969 movement, and, as Al Jazeera reports, titles himself the “Burmese Bin Laden”. Sympathisers of the 969 movement view the Rohingya as illegal immigrants in Myanmar, aiming to establish a Muslim state by 2100.

Naturally, many Rohingya have fled, either from the camps that do not provide for their daily needs, or from violence from extremist Buddhists.

Furthermore, many of them are turning to people smugglers to escape Myanmar after having waited more than 5 years for the UN to assess their refugee claims and resettle them. Recently, a truck crossing through Thailand was found to have 98 Rohingya inside, mostly under 18, with one woman having died of suffocation.

On 05 January the ABC News reported that 53 Rohingya had been apprehended in Thailand as they were about to embark by boat to Malaysia, which is a majority Muslim country.

Worst effect of Statelessness – People-Trafficking

Crossing through Thailand is another danger Rohingya face, as people apprehended are often held in overcrowded facilities. They may also fall victim to people-trafficking, as reported by Reuters.

This trafficking is reportedly conducted through the Thai army, with many being held in cells until family can pay for their release.

For those unable to deliver the ransom, some are sold as manual labour to farms and shipping companies, or die of starvation and disease. Some are pushed back out to sea upon entering Thai waters, somewhat similar to conditions for refugees attempting to enter Australia by boat, leaving them in dire straits.

The worst effects of statelessness can be seen to be experienced by the Rohingya people, and the international community will have failed them if action is not taken soon to remedy the problem.

Statelessness!

Statelessness, the Human Rights Commission & The Dept Of immigration And Citizenship

In 2012 the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) published the report ‘Community arrangements for asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons’. The report discusses the issue of stateless persons being kept in detention for long periods of time because they have not been granted refugee status or had substantive visa pathways made available to them.

The AHRC recommended that the Australian Government should develop a formal statelessness determination mechanism

The AHRC recommended that the Australian Government should develop a formal statelessness determination mechanism which recognises both de jure, and de facto statelessness.

The meaning of de jure statelessness can be found in Article 1 of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”.

While there is no international agreed definition of de facto statelessness, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stated in 2010 “de facto stateless persons are persons outside the country of their nationality who are unable or, for valid reasons, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.”

Additionally the report recommends the establishment of administrative pathways for the grant of substantive visas to stateless persons who have been found not to be refugees or otherwise owed protection.

The Department of Home Affairs response

The DIBD response to the AHRC’s report stated that neither the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons or the the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness “prevents removal of stateless persons who are unlawfully in Australia…or requires the grant of a visa, and statelessness alone is not a ground for engaging Australia’s international protection obligations under other international human rights instruments”. However they did say they were “committed to identify situations of statelessness more rapidly and to provide for decision makers better tools for assessing the claims of stateless people.”

Nonetheless three years after the publication of the AHRC’s recommendations, the chief executive officer of the Refugee Council of Australia Paul Power said:

The lack of a statutory statelessness determination procedure coupled with no viable resolution for stateless people has meant that hundreds of stateless people in detention and in the community face an uncertain future.”

What is a stateless person?

Statelessness

The Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons terms “Stateless Person” as a ‘person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.’
This situation can often take effect relating to many asylum seekers and refugees fleeing their country for fear of persecution or ongoing violence and breach of basic human rights.

555 people in closed detention in Australia identified as being stateless

The Australian Human Rights Commission(AHRC) found that as of “15 May 2012, there were 555 people in closed detention in Australia who identified as being stateless, 114 of whom had been detained for over 540 days”.

Australia does have obligations regarding stateless individual(s) pursuant to the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. There are guidelines for assessing claims of statelessness, however this is unfortunately not enough to produce an efficient remedy.

The reason is statelessness does not ‘provide for the grant of a visa in response to an assessment that a person is stateless’

Therefore, the global distribution of asylum seekers and refugees exemplifies what the authors of An Introduction to International Relations call the “dilemma that the world is currently facing” and in turn a third category of people has been created: stateless persons. This fact produces several questions surrounding statelessness and stateless persons.

Effect of statelessness

In its Community Arrangements For Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Stateless Persons, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) highlights the benefits of community placement. The effect of statelessness stresses the position of these people in legal limbo. The AHRC has recommended that there should be a development of formal recognition of statelessness. The rights of stateless persons should also include ways to grant them substantive visas. Thus, the AHRC provides numerous recommendations to rectify issues surrounding asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons.

Case study

Miran Hosny’s article in the New Matilda, ‘Stateless Refugee Caught in Legal Limbo’, tells the story of Ahmad Alhaj, born in Saudi Arabia but ethnically Chadian, who came to Australia seeking asylum.

This case highlights a situation in which a person can be caught in legal limbo. Ahmad came to Australia via plane from Saudi Arabia, where he left due to a life of constant discrimination.

A legal technicality meant the Australian government refused to grant him a protection visa. As a result, he was immediately detained in Villawood Detention Centre and now faces deportation to Chad (despite the fact he has never been there) merely as a result of his Chadian parentage. This deportation will render Ahmad virtually stateless.

If deported to Chad (and this is very likely), Ahmad will have no support network or means of establishing one especially that he can hardly speak Ratana, the language of the extremely marginal desert tribe, one of 200 languages spoken in Chad.

Additionally, the human rights record of the Chadian military is negligible, with Amnesty International reporting that most violations go unchallenged, and around 90,000 people are currently internally displaced.

“I am exactly like the Bidouns of Kuwait,” Ahmad stated. “They tell me I’ll get used to it [Chad]. I tell them it’s impossible. I’d rather stay here, die here or get sent to any island than go to Chad.”

Click on the links below for further stories on Australians who are now stateless:

‘Deported Drug Offender Stateless in Serbia’ – Sascha Stevanovic, who came to Australia as a two year old, is living in Serbia with no way of supporting himself, after he was deported from Australia following a lengthy period in prison on drug offences.

‘Australia to deport German-born criminal’ – The federal government defended its decision to deport a German-born Australian resident because of his lengthy and serious criminal record.

‘Stateless Man Fails to Plead his Case’ – Despite living in Australia most of his life, Mr Robert Jovicic, 42, was deported to Serbia in June 2004 after committing a string of crimes linked to his heroin addiction.