Geospatial Technologies and Human Rights

GEOSPATIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS: VIEWS OF DESTRUCTION AND DISPLACEMENT IN MYANMAR AND NEIGHBORING BANGLADESH DECEMBER 2021

The University of Dayton's Mann Chair in Natural Sciences, Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences, & Human Rights Center in partnership with the AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This brief analysis was produced by the University of Dayton’s Human Rights Center, together with the Mann Chair in Natural Sciences and the Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences in partnership with AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program.

Lead contributors include: Umesh K. Haritashya, Ph.D Professor, Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences & Mann Chair (Endowed) in the Natural Sciences Chia-Yu Wu, Ph.D Lecturer, Geology and Environmental Geosciences, College of Arts and Sciences Bailey Johnson MPA student & Graduate Assistant, HRC Ian Jespersen International Studies Major & HRC GIS intern Jonathan Drake, AAAS Senior Program Associate

DISCLAIMER The interpretations and conclusions contained in the report are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the AAAS Board of Directors, its Council and membership, or the University of Dayton.

3

INTRODUCTION

This brief analysis provides the results of an assessment of the destruction of existing Rohingya 1 structures in Myanmar and the concurrent expansion of refugee settlements in Bangladesh during the mass refugee movement of Rohingya in the summer of 2017 using multi-temporal satellite imagery. This assessment, conducted on the basis of multi-temporal satellite imagery, was completed through a partnership between the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the University of Dayton’s Human Rights Center, Mann Chair in Natural Sciences, and the University of Dayton’s Human Rights Center, its Mann Chair in Natural Sciences, and the Department of Geology and Environmental Geosciences. The results of the assessment are consistent with the findings of the United Nations (UN) and international non-governmental organizations related to the destruction of Rohingya villages and the resulting displacement of Rohingya in the neighboring country of Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND The state of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has a history riddled with invasion, occupation, violence, and displacement. Prior to World War II, Burma was invaded by Great Britain, resulting in conflict until Burma became a province of British-controlled India and later a British colony. Burma became a republic in 1948. At that time, the Burmese Parliament passed the Union Citizenship Act, which recognized all citizens of Burma as equal, including the Muslim group of Rohingya and other minority groups. 2 Myanmar has been governed by military regimes since 1962. Historically, the Rohingya faced longstanding persecution and discrimination, including getting stripped of their citizenship in 1978, which began during “Operation Dragon King” culminating in a series of discriminatory laws and policies including the 1982 citizenship law, which resulted in the Rohingya becoming the largest group of stateless people in the world.3 The Rohingya are a distinct ethnic, racial, and religious group that resides primarily in Myanmar’s Rakhine State. 4

1

2

The term “Rohingya” is used in line with the right to self-identity by the group concerned.

For an in-depth historic context, see, Transnational Institute, Arakan (Rakhine State) A Land in Conflict on Myanmar’s Western Frontier, (December 2019), available at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/EMRIP/RightToLand/RohingyaSubmission.pdf.

3

4

See generally, UNHCR, ‘ Rohingya Refugee Crisis , available at https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/rohingya/.

See above, Transnational Institute, A Land in Conflict on Myanmar’s Western Frontier.

4

Estimates put the total population of Rohingya from Myanmar at more than 1 million out of 52 million people in the country as a whole. 5 A new constitution, adopted in 2008, allowed for more democratic reforms in Myanmar but guaranteed continued military rule in the country. This constitution also excluded large portions of the population including the Rohingya from basic human rights protection, such as freedom of opinion and expression, association and peaceful assembly. These rights were 6 reserved only for “citizens.” The lack of legal identity and rights for Rohingya is considered the “cornerstone of this system of oppression.” 7 In May of 2012, anti-Muslim violence reached a boiling point when a Buddhist woman was reportedly raped and murdered by three Muslim men. 8 Violence began to spread throughout Rakhine state, and by the end of August 2012, almost 200 people had been killed and around 8614 houses were destroyed. 9 By the end of the year, the capital city of Rakhine State, Sattwe, had lost the vast majority of its Muslim population, with many of them forced into camps outside of the town. Anti-Muslim violence spread outside of Rakhine State, and by 2013 over 230,000 people were living in refugee camps in the neighboring country of Bangladesh. 10 Following the violence that broke out in 2012, the government of Myanmar introduced four measures that encouraged segregation and discrimination against the Muslim population, including the Rohingya, in the country. These measures included the “denial of Rohingya identity; the withdrawal of Temporary Registration Certificates which effectively removed the right to vote for those who had held them; ‘Race and Religion’ protection laws; and the intensification of security measures in the Bangladesh borderlands.” 11

5

SS Mahmood et al, ‘The Rohingya people of Myanmar: health, human rights, and identity,’ (2017) Vol 389 The Lancet 1841-1850. Since the last census in Myanmar in 2014 did not allow for the identification of this ethnic identity, more exact numbers of Rohingya are not known. See 2014 Population and Housing Census of Myanmar, available at

https://myanmar.unfpa.org/en/publications/2014-population-and-housing-census-myanmar-data-sheet; and Arakan (Rakhine State) A Land in Conflict on Myanmar’s Western Frontier, p. 15.

6 See chapter V, section B.1. Denial of legal status and identity of the 2008 Constitution. See also 354 of the Constitution.

7

8

UN Human Rights Council (HRC), Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar ( September 16, 2019), UN doc. para 459.

UN Human Rights Council (HRC), Report of the Independent International Fact- Finding Mission on Myanmar (12 September 2018), UN doc. A/HRC/39/64, para. 24.

9

These figures are believed to be well below the actual scale of the violence. See HRC, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, para 628.

10 Transnational Institute, A Land in Conflict on Myanmar’s Western Frontier, p. 74.

11 As above, pp. 75-76.

5

In 2016, the Myanmar military (the “Tatmadaw”) and other Myanmar security forces launched “clearance operations” against the Rohingya. Widespread acts of killing, rape and other forms of sexual violence, and destruction of Rohingya villages in Rakhine were reported by the UN to have occurred during these operations, claims which were later substantiated by international 12 human rights organizations. The violence that occurred in 2016 during the “clearance 13 operations” began again on 25 August 2017. In hopes of bringing more attention to the situation of the Rohyingya, coordinated attacks were launched by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), a rebel group, at a military base and outposts across Northern Rakhine, which led to casualties. Consequently, the Tatmadaw responded swiftly by attacking villages in Rakhine through their strategic aim of addressing “terrorist attacks”. These response operations continued to October 2017.14 This violence forced over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. 15 In March 2017, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) established the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for Myanmar to investigate alleged human rights violations in Myanmar. This mission rejected the idea that the conflict was purely intercommunal, as the government had said it was, and instead asserted that a “campaign of hate and dehumanization of the Rohingya had been under way for months.” 16 The mission also obtained a large body of satellite imagery and analysis with the support of UNOSAT, the Operational Satellite Applications Programme of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).17 According to the mission: 18

more than 40 per cent of all villages in northern Rakhine State were partially or totally destroyed. The most intense phase was the first three weeks [August 25-September 15 2017] when more than 80 per cent of the destruction was perpetrated.

This period of time is the focus of this brief analysis.

12

13 14 15

16 17

18

HRC, Report of the Independent International Fact- Finding Mission on Myanmar, para 25. See also Amnesty International, Myanmar: “We will destroy everything”: Military responsibility for crimes against humanity in Rakhine State (June, 272018), available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa16/8630/2018/en/.

HRC, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, para 535.

As above, para 750.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Humanitarian Response Plan: Myanmar (2021), available at https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/mmr_humanitarian_response_plan_2021_final.pdf.

HRC, Report of the Independent International Fact- Finding Mission on Myanmar , para. 25.

HRC, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (16 September 2019), UN doc. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, para 22.

As above, para 751.

6

DATA & METHODS This brief analysis aims to assess damage that occurred to existing structures in Rohingya-majority regions of Myanmar, and the expansion of refugee settlements in Bangladesh using multi-temporal satellite images during the period of mass refugee movement (referred to herein as the Rohingya refugee crisis). The region near the Myanmar-Bangladesh border was imaged days before and after the escalation of this refugee crisis during Summer 2017. Specifically, it uses 0.5 m spatial resolution satellite images acquired on May 25, 2017 and October 11, 2017 for the selected border zone (Figure 1). All imagery was obtained via the MAXAR SecureWatch portal.

FIGURE 1. MAP OF MYANMAR AND BANGLADESH (A), AND OUR STUDY AREA (B) NEAR MYANMARBANGLADESH BORDER.

7

The two images used in this analysis were acquired from different vantage points with differing off-nadir angles. It should be noted that these images were from the pre-monsoon and post-monsoon season, respectively, which posed a challenge due to overgrown vegetation in some areas., but the region was divided into five zones and individually analyzed and mapped by a five-person team. Each zone was then cross-verified to ensure mapping accuracy. Table 1 summarizes the criteria employed to identify and delineate damaged structures, new structures, or any other features of interest related to this crisis.

DAMAGED STRUCTURES

Partial Damaged Structures

Totally Destroyed Structures

NEW STRUCTURES

New Tent

New Informal Structure

OTHERS

Soil Disturbance

Earthwork

Military Vehicle

TABLE 1. THE CRITERIA EMPLOYED TO COUNT DAMAGED OR NEW STRUCTURES, AS WELL AS OTHER FEATURES.

RESULTS Figure 2 shows damaged structures in Taung Pyo Let Yar village in Myanmar (See location in Figure 1B) before the Rohingya refugee crisis (Figure 2A) and after the crisis took place (Figure 2B). By comparing the changes between two satellite images, it was found that all buildings in this village (65 in total) were either completely or partially destroyed (Figure 2C). This is consistent with reports of a thorough campaign of ethnic cleansing, as described above. Given the level of destruction observed, it is probable that any survivors of this destruction would likely have been forced to flee Taung Pyo Let Yar village.

8

FIGURE 2. SATELLITE IMAGES OF THE ROHINGYA VILLAGE OF TAUNG PYO LET YAR (SEE LOCATION IN FIGURE 1B) ON MAY 25, 2017 (A) AND OCTOBER 11, 2017 (B), SHOWING COMPLETE DESTRUCTION, AND RED TRIANGLES (C) SHOWING THE LOCATION OF INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES.

Figure 3 illustrates the expansion of the refugee camp in the Jomer Chora region of Bangladesh (See location in Figure 1B). As shown in Figure 3, a large percentage of the original grassland present on May 25, 2017 (Figure 3A) had been occupied by informal structures or tents after the Rohingya refugee crisis occurred (Figure 3 B). Approximately 3,615 informal structures or tents that were newly built in this region during the study period were identified (Figure 3C). Furthermore, Figure 3D clearly illustrates how dense the new structures were by zooming into a selected area (see area in Figure 3B). When compared with the estimated area from Figure 3 (0.96 km 2 ), the new structure density is as high as 3,765 buildings per km2 .

9

FIGURE 3. SATELLITE IMAGES FROM MAY 25, 2017 (A) AND OCTOBER 11, 2017 (B) SHOW THE EXPANSION OF REFUGEE CAMPS IN THE JOMER CHORA AREA, BANGLADESH (SEE LOCATION IN FIGURE 1B). (C) BLUE RECTANGLE SHOWS THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS OR CAMPS. (D) ZOOMED-IN AREA FROM (B) DEPICTING THE HIGH DENSITY OF THE NEW STRUCTURES..

Overall, the analysis estimates that approximately 19,540 structures had been affected in the entire study area. Among them, 899 houses or structures were partially or fully damaged. Additionally, 18,579 informal structures or tents had been erected. In addition, 32 earthworks or soil disturbances that might be related to military maneuvers, including 2 military vehicles in the satellite imagery, were identified. Figure 4 shows the distribution of damaged and new structures in the study area. It also depicts the spatial distribution of all the structure counts. This is consistent with the reports of military movement causing severe damage to the structures in Myanmar and likely to the livelihood of the Rohingya community. In contrast, massive refugee camps were developed after Rohingya refugees reportedly fled into Bangladesh following the crisis.

10 Furthermore, the total size of the satellite image area is approximately 66.67 km2 , which, when compared with the structure count results, shows the density of the refugee camp to be ~278.7 buildings per km2 . In contrast, the density of damaged structures in Myanmar is 13.5 buildings per km2 . This illustrates how refugees are forced to stay within a small zone, raising the question of proper sanitation and hygiene. It also raises safety concerns. 19

FIGURE 4. THE MAP SHOWS THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND BUILDING COUNTS OF DESTRUCTION IN MYANMAR (GREEN DOTS), AS WELL AS THE EXPANSION OF REFUGEE CAMPS IN BANGLADESH (RED TRIANGLES) DURING THE 2017 ROHINGYA CRISIS.

19

See UNICEF statement by the Representative in Bangladesh, Tomoo Hozumi on the devastating fire displaces thousands in Rohingya refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh(March 22, 2021), available at https://www.unicef.org/pressreleases/devastating-fire-displaces-thousands-rohingya-refugee-camps-coxs-bazar-bangladesh.

11

There were some limitations of satellite image analysis. Figure 5 provides an example showing an area that appeared to be disturbed; however, it is unclear if the disturbance is completely related to the expansion of refugee camps. It may be associated with agricultural activities. However, due to a lack of ground truth evidence, it is difficult to confirm the activity type. Cloud cover and cloud shadows, which are a major issue when using optical satellite images, partly hampered the analysis since 25-30% of the area between the two images used in this study was obscured. It should be noted, however, that the cloud-free regions of the area of interest were more than sufficient in size for this analysis to come to meaningful conclusions.

FIGURE 5. SATELLITE IMAGES FROM MAY 25, 2017 (A) AND OCTOBER 11, 2017 (B) NEAR JOMER CHORA AREA, BANGLADESH. THE AREA APPEARS TO BE DISTURBED, POSSIBLY DUE TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.

In sum, satellite imagery revealed severe damage to the buildings in Rakhine State, Myanmar, which coincided with a massive expansion of refugee camps in Bangladesh.

12

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS Since 1991 when the UN General Assembly adopted its first resolution on the situation of Myanmar 20 and the subsequent creation of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in 1992 by the then Commission on Human Rights (now Human Rights Council), there have been a 21 series of resolutions, reports and investigations on the human rights situation in the country. On the status of the Rohingya, the UN has found human rights violations such as arrest and detention, arbitrary deprivation of life and forced displacement.22 In particular, the Special Rapporteurs have also noted refugee movements into neighboring countries, mainly Bangladesh due to the forced displacement.23 Various UN mechanisms have urged the Government of Myanmar to take all measures necessary to prevent the marginalization of the Rohingya and to prevent the destruction of infrastructure and forced displacement. 24 Myanmar has ratified four of the core United Nations human rights treaties.25 The country is a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). As a party to these conventions, Myanmar is committed to undertake measures in compliance with international human rights norms and standards articulated in these treaties. In addition to long standing violations of some of these norms related to the rights of the Rohingya minority, the destruction of buildings is not consistent with their obligation of ensuring the adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, which are equally applicable to everyone regardless of legal status. 26 Other violations include the right to property which is implicated in relation to the destruction of Rohingya villages and the resulting displacement of the Rohingya. 27

20

21

UN General Assembly, Situation in Myanmar: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, December 17, 1991, A/RES/46/132, available at: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/46/132.

OHCHR, Situation of human rights in Myanmar Commission on Human rights resolution 1992/58, E/CN.4/RES/1992/58, available at https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Myan%20E%20CN4%20RES%201992%2058.pdf.

HRC, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, para 98.

23 As above, para 99.

22

24

For UN documents on Myanmar and the status of the Rohingya, see OHCHR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=89.

25

Ratification Status for Myanmar, available at https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?

CountryID=119&Lang=EN.

26

27

United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, (E/C.12/GC/20), para. 30.

HRC, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, para 497.

13

In addition to these core treaties, Myanmar is also party to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 since 1992. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions obliges states to protect civilians and other persons not taking direct part in the hostilities. Consistent with the imagery analysis findings revealing severe damage to existing Rohingya buildings, the UN Fact Finding Mission noted that attacks are prohibited where, in addition to loss of life and injury, they cause damage to civilians’ objects, in this 28 case buildings, when this is excessive. It further confirms:

PATTERNS OF ATTACKS DIRECTED BY THE MYANMAR MILITARY AGAINST CIVILIANS AND CIVILIAN OR OTHER PROTECTED OBJECTS, AS WELL AS INDISCRIMINATE ATTACKS. THESE HAVE OFTEN BEEN CARRIED OUT IN CIVILIAN POPULATED RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPARENT MILITARY OBJECTIVE JUSTIFYING THE USE OF THESE TACTICS, IN FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF LIFE, PROPERTY AND THE WELL-BEING OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION. ATTACKS RESULTED IN THE DEATHS AND INJURIES OF CIVILIANS. WIDESPREAD LOOTING, AS WELL AS THE DESTRUCTION AND BURNING OF HOMES AND PROPERTY, HAVE OFTEN ACCOMPANIED MILITARY OPERATIONS. 29

Thus, the findings of extreme destruction of property and related forced displacement resulting in new construction of infrastructure across the border are consistent with numerous reports and investigations by 30 international bodies and human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 31 According to the International Fact-Finding Mission “satellite imagery and first-hand accounts corroborate widespread, systematic, deliberate and targeted destruction, mainly by fire, of Rohingyapopulated areas.” 32 In addition, following the attacks, the findings of the rapid expansion of new informal tents built across the border at the same time as the destruction of peoples’ properties is consistent with the reports of over 600,000 Rohingya fleeing to neighboring Bangladesh. 33

28 As above, para 61.

29 Emphasis added. As above, para 115. See also paras. 134-138 on accounts given to the Mission on the Tatmadaw’s widespread

practice of attacking and destroying property as part of its military operations.

30 For e.g., Amnesty International, All the civilians suffer: Conflict, displacement and abuse in Northern Myanmar (2017), available at

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa16/6429/2017/en/.

31 See for e.g., Human Rights Watch, Damage Assessment Summary for Kyaukpyu – Based on satellite imagery recorded on

morning of 25 October 2012 available at https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/HRW_Kyaukpyu_Damages_v1%20Copyright.pdf, and Human Rights Watch, Burma: New Violence in Arakan State – Satellite Imagery Shows Widespread Destruction of Rohingya 32 33

Homes, Property (26 October 2012), available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/10/26/burma-new-violence-arakan-state.

HRC, Report of the Independent International Fact- Finding Mission on Myanmar, para 42.

Amnesty International, Caged without proof: Apartheid in Myanmar’s Rakhine state (2017), available at https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Caged-without-a-Roof-Apartheid-in-Myanmar-Rakhine-StateFINAL.pdf.

14

CONCLUSION This brief analysis finds evidence of mass destruction of buildings in Rakhine State and the major expansion of new informal tents and other structures on the Bangladesh border between May 25, 2017 and October 11, 2017. There are ongoing investigations by the UN’s Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), which was established through resolution 39/2 adopted in 2018, 34 and the International Criminal Court (ICC) into alleged crimes committed during the violence that occurred in Rakhine and in Bangladesh, a state party to the Rome Statute.35 In view of the findings of this brief analysis, it is indicated that further in-depth analysis of satellite imagery could add value to these evidence-gathering efforts.

34 35

For more information on the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, https://iimm.un.org/.

International Criminal Court, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar, ICC-01/19-27(14 November 2019), available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/record.aspx?docNo=ICC-01/19-27.