Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Sept. 21st, 2017

[Ahmed Ramadan]

I'll be very brief.

In regard to actual mobilization, I don't believe that would be even safe for them, but there was a letter that was released before this massacre started, and it was signed by many groups that are there in support of the Rohingya, but not in a mobilizing way where they'll put themselves out there.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ramadan.

Now we'll go to Madam Hardcastle for five minutes.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm going to get quickly to my questions, because it's taking a lot of my energy just to contain my emotion on this. I want this meeting to be impactful and I want all of us here to be able to come away with some real language and something really tangible in terms of a forceful recommendation, because we know that what we've done so far is obviously not enough.

In terms of collecting and documenting evidence, I want to clarify what the important role has been for the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal on Myanmar. Has that been helpful in documenting evidence or not? Is there some way our government can assist in amassing the documentation that's needed, ultimately, for the UN Security Council? I'll ask you that, and all of you can think about that. That's one question.

Then the other one is this. What other diplomatic force can you see that we can be part of or we should be instilling in terms of the support going to the internment camps and food? Do we need UN peacekeepers to actually escort this stuff? Is that what you were saying, Mr. Smith?

I'll take the rest of my time to let all of you expand on that. I don't know who wants to go first.

[Ahmed Ramadan]

Thank you for the questions. They are two very important questions. Actually, on the way here I was on the phone with the chair of the Burma Task Force. He's at the Bangladesh border himself right now documenting some of what's going on.

He specifically asked me to ask this committee if it can help with documenting what's going on there. There are people there who have names, who have villages, who have houses; everything's been destroyed, and they need more people to be able to document this. This is definitely somewhere that we can not only help with evidence but also go back and maybe get some of these people justice for what they've gone through.

We in the Burma Task Force believe the only solution right now is a peacekeeping force in there and creating a safe zone. I can't see any other option that will work right now.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Smith, do you want to respond?

[Matthew Smith]

Yes, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, but I do think these initiatives are helpful. We at Fortify Rights document human rights violations, and another side of our work is that we provide technical support to communities that are under attack or local civil society organizations or individuals. We try to ensure that these communities become part of the solution, particularly in the area of documentation. Right now, we're trying to ramp up our efforts so that members of the Rohingya community themselves can credibly document incidents of human rights violations in a way that will be useful for things such as the UN mandated fact-finding mission on Myanmar and other efforts that may come forward in the future towards justice and accountability.

We believe very much in the importance of documentation. Right now is a very key moment for this, because the crimes are still being perpetrated. Right now, for example, we're trying to locate the mass graves and other areas where there would be a large amount of evidence.

I think, in short, civil society is key for this, and Myanmar does have civil society organizations and individuals. The Rohingya community does not have as developed a civil society as other ethnic groups in Myanmar, and that's largely due to the amount of repression they've faced over the years, but we are certainly more than happy to work with partners from Canada and others who are committed to human rights documentation in this context. In terms of peacekeepers—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Smith. I just want to give Mr. Arkani an opportunity to respond to this.

[Anwar Arkani]

On the documentation collection, I think these two gentlemen have said enough.

I would like to add that if Canada supports the organizations in the field on the Bangladesh border that are collecting documentation, if they get more financial support, I think they will have more volunteers or paid employees, Rohingya, who can collect the documentation that is needed.

As far as the peacekeeping forces are concerned, I have been screaming for a while. Some of my siblings are dead. They did not die normally. They were burned alive. Two of my brothers-in-law were slaughtered in front of their young children at home. This is absolutely worse than any horror movie that I can imagine. That is how bad the situation is. Immediate intervention is needed.

I have two nieces in one village and a nephew in another village. My youngest sister is still alive. She has six kids. The biggest one also has a wife and two kids. The area is surrounded by the army. They are aided by the Buddhists wielding machetes. They said, “They don't need to do anything. They don't need to kill us. We will die here.” There are no green leaves left inside the compound. They ate the banana plants and all the leaves that were there, mango leaves and other things. There is absolutely nothing to eat, so they will die unless there is an immediate intervention.

Create a safe zone and send a peacekeeping force. Those are the immediate things needed. Then maybe we can get some time to breathe and go for a long-term plan.

This is my request.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I want to ask about Aung San Suu Kyi. Many across the world would have expected more from someone of her stature—a Nobel Prize winner and someone who has advocated for democracy in Burma throughout her life. However, this is not the case now.

My question is for Mr. Smith and Mr. Ramadan.

What explains the deafening silence? Now, where she has spoken about it, her words have not been helpful at all. She is permitting the violence to take place with her particular stand on the issue. What are the reasons? Is it for political reasons? Is there a prevailing sense of Buddhist nationalism in the country that she is worried about offending which would have political ramifications for her and the National League for Democracy?

There are reports of a prevailing sense—irrational—of fear of Islam within Burmese society and she is mindful of that and does not want to do anything that would make it seem as if she is siding with those in the state that people are fearful of, Muslims, whom people are fearful of, again irrationally, but the sentiment is there. What explanations can you offer?

[Matthew Smith]

That is an excellent question on an important issue.

Prior to the October 9 attacks, Aung San Suu Kyi was largely equivocal, but since then we have seen her and her office perpetuating this propaganda campaign. It's a very deadly propaganda campaign. It's getting people in the country riled up against Rohingya, and it will most likely result in more violence and more killing. That is a problem.

I think there are a number of theories. We can't get into Aung San Suu Kyi's head, but from our perspective, it is a difficult political environment. She doesn't control the military. However, her actively taking part and basically walking in lockstep with the military on this brutal campaign is problematic. We have heard dispatches from people meeting with her privately. What we're hearing about the way Aung San Suu Kyi speaks about the situation in Rakhine State is very disturbing.

It's worth noting that members of the various ethnic nationalities throughout Myanmar—and there are civil wars taking place in other parts of the country—have always had very little trust in Aung San Suu Kyi. For myself and others in the international community, it has been difficult to understand why over the years, but now, sadly, their logic makes a little bit more sense. We're not totally sure what's happening in the mind of Aung San Suu Kyi, but we do know that the outcomes are, frankly, disastrous.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Ramadan.

[Ahmed Ramadan]

It's a very good question. I was hoping that we would get to address this.

From the beginning until now, Burma Task Force actually did put forward a memo discussing what happened in her first 100 days. She has not been silent from the beginning until now. She has been very vocal. She's been denying, and a lot of people were saying this is due to her just coming into power and trying to work out the details.

The fact of the matter is that she has been able to do what the military was never able to do, including not having any Muslims in parliament, not having Muslims voting, asking the international community not to use the word “Rohingya”, and the list goes on. Beyond that, the military, as I said, needs her. She's been able to open up the country in a way that they haven't and at the same time been able to crack down and destroy the Rohingya community, with her as their defence.

One of the things that came out from the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, which Burma Task Force did sponsor, is that her differences with the military are not based on including ethnicities and trying to be more inclusive or marginalizing. Her differences with the military are about implementation of government processes: how fast, how slow, what needs to be done, and in what way. But when it comes to her treatment of minorities and specifically the Rohingya, they're on the same page. There is no difference between Aung San Suu Kyi and the military itself.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's all the time, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Smith, I saw you nodding as Mr. Ramadan was testifying just now. Would you agree with the last portion of what he said?

[Matthew Smith]

I would. The situation, certainly dating back to when Aung San Suu Kyi took office, has been problematic. I was in the internment camps in Rakhine State when the national elections were held. There was a great amount of hope for Aung San Suu Kyi and for her government, even despite the fact that Rohingya were denied the right to vote, and of course that has not come to fruition in any way, shape, or form.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you. I have one more question and then I'll give the rest of my time to my colleague, if there's anything else.

Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramadan mentioned that we should use the word “genocide”. I have the United Nations website here in front of me. There are two main components. One is that there needs to be an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

The second part is physical:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Would your organization also use the term, in this case, in Myanmar, of genocide against the Rohingya?

[Matthew Smith]

Thank you, sir. Back in 2015, we gave a team of people from Yale Law School several years' worth of documentation and asked them to approach this question about whether the crime of genocide may have been perpetrated in Rakhine State. This was before the current wave of violence. Their conclusion was that the elements of genocide do appear to be in place in Rakhine State and may be in place in Rakhine State. From our perspective, there would have to be and should be a credible international independent investigation that would ideally lead to some aspect of accountability. An investigation such as this in a court could and should help us understand what specific international crimes have been perpetrated and by whom.

My personal view is that I do see evidence on the ground that would support the crime of genocide. Particularly, you mentioned the prohibited acts. Essentially, we know the Rohingya represent a protected group under the genocide convention, which is the first element. The second element is that some of these prohibited acts would have to have occurred, which of course they have. The third is of course the intent to destroy, in whole or in part. In some of these places, given the totality of the context right now, it's very difficult to come to conclusions other than the fact that there are perpetrators who are intending to destroy at least part of the Rohingya community.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Smith. I think there's time for one question, Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I want to acknowledge Peter's question, because I think it was a critical one. I wanted to get there myself, but I'm glad that we were able to cover that a bit more fully.

One thing we haven't talked much about is the radicalization, outside funding, of armed Rohingya resistance forces, and I am just wondering. Mr. Smith, you're probably closest on the ground there, or perhaps Mr. Ramadan. We've read some articles about that. I don't know how accurate they are. Could you tell us a bit about those three or four groups? Who are they? How are they tied together? What strength do they have? We realize there's an international public relations campaign going on here on areas of this, but who are they? What are they? Do they have any strength? Tell us a bit about them.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

As briefly as possible, Mr. Smith.

[Matthew Smith]

I assume you're referring to the northern Rakhine Rohingya militants.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes.

[Matthew Smith]

From what we know about this group they were armed mostly with sticks and knives. They don't appear at all to be a well-armed terrorist organization by any stretch. We documented several cells in villages all throughout northern Rakhine State. Their recruitment increased dramatically after the first clearance operations in October and November. People who survived that joined up.

We have noted that this organization was threatening and intimidating local Rohingya to join their effort. They were threatening men and boys with beheadings if they didn't join. We also know that this organization has killed Rohingya men who they thought were informants to the Government of Myanmar. This has happened. We documented several cases. People have also disappeared, and we do presume those individuals were killed as well.

In terms of the means of communication, they're using social media. There were some articles suggesting that this group was only communicating with foot runners. That's not the case. They're using two-way radios. They're using mobile phones.

I should say that certainly among any group of people who have endured human rights violations the way in which the Rohingya have, we are surprised that this type of militancy actually didn't appear sooner. I think the jury's still out on whether or not—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Smith, I appreciate it.

Madam Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you to our witnesses for their testimony today.

I have one question, and I would like both Mr. Smith and Mr. Ramadan to comment on this. Earlier this year, when Aung San Suu Kyi came to Canada, I had the opportunity, along with the chair of our committee, Mr. Levitt, to meet with her along with our foreign affairs minister, and ask her directly about what was happening in Rakhine State, and what she is willing to do with the issue of the Rohingya. She, in her response, had shown favour to the advisory committee that was created and chaired by Kofi Annan, and the recommendations.

Can both of you speak to the recommendations that were from that committee, and whether it would be favourable for if not a short-term solution then perhaps a long-term solution to the issue?

Also, with respect to the 1982 citizenship act that Mr. Arkani referred to, can you comment on what specific changes could be made to that act to allow the Rohingya to come back in and resettle into Rakhine State?

I would like Mr. Smith to go first. Thank you.