One of the most dramatic humanitarian crisis that has hit Asia in a long time is the one concerning the Rohingya minority of Myanmar, whose population suffered gross human rights violations in the last years. However, Myanmar is also a member of ASEAN, an international organization of ten South-East Asia countries, and in 2007 the member states reunited in Jakarta voted in favour of the creation of a charter inspired by the European Union. Among the other things, it included upholding international law with respect to human rights, social justice, and multilateral trade, appointing a secretary-general and permanent representatives of ASEAN, and the establishment of a body that can uphold basic human rights and an unresolved dispute mechanism (Media Release – ASEAN Leaders Sign ASEAN Charter Singapore, 20 November 2007 – ASEAN | ONE VISION ONE IDENTITY ONE COMMUNITY, 2007).
The goal of this article is to consider the events happened between 2017 and 2019 in the Rakhine region of Myanmar and the ineffective role of ASEAN in the resolution of the conflict will be accounted given the report.
The Rohingya Persecution
The Rohingya persecution On The 5th of December 2017, the Rohingya community has been described in an assembly of the Human Rights Council as the “most persecuted” community of the world (“OHCHR | Human Rights Council opens a special session on the situation of human rights of the Rohingya and other minorities in Rakhine State in Myanmar”, 2017).
However, the turning point was on 9th October 2016. On that day, a series of attacks to border posts in the Rakhine State (where most of the Rohingya live) was reported by the authorities of Myanmar, with 9 officers left dead and several firearms reportedly looted. An insurgent group called Harakah al-Yaqin took responsibility for the attack. (“Islamist fears rise in Rohingya linked violence”, 2020). Following this incident, the government started a retaliation campaign against the Rohingya population of Rakhine. Razzaque Khat et al report 25,000 murdered Rohingya, 18,000 women and adolescents raped, 43,000 have been injured and 116,000 Rohingyas were bodily harmed.
Their research suggests that about 54 percent of the Rohingya refugees were under the age of 18 and that they experienced violence during their exodus to Bangladesh. (Ahmed et al, 2019) The Ontario International Development Agency (OIDA) reported that more than 100000 Rohingyas were beaten, 34000 thrown into the fire and approximately 24000 were killed by Myanmar’s Police Forces (Forced Migration of Rohingya: The Untold Experience.). More than 750,000 Rohingya refugees, mostly children, and women, fled Myanmar and crossed into neighbouring Bangladesh according to Amnesty International (Baykan, 2019).
It’s no wonder that senior UN officials have formally accused Myanmar of committing ethnic cleansing. The report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission of 2017 highlights massive and consistent human rights violations. The response of Aung San Suu Kyi, head of State and former political activist is that “there is no country without human rights issues” (Broomfield, 2020).
ASEAN: members, rules, impact and shortcomings
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN for short, is an international organization composed of ten countries of South-East Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, and Myanmar originally established in 1967. The main goal of the organization is accelerating the economic growth, social progress, and cultural development in the region and promoting regional stability and peace (“Overview – ASEAN | ONE VISION ONE IDENTITY ONE COMMUNITY”, 2020). Then, considering that ASEAN promotes the development and protection of human rights, one must wonder why ASEAN never directly stepped in to stop the Rohingya massacre. The reason is quite simple and also constitutes the main characteristic of the organization, and it’s called the “ASEAN way”. According to this principle, every decision must be unanimous and alliances among member States are not allowed in order to resolve disputes that would favour one State. This translates into having understandings that are not legally binding and that are largely informal and this explains why ASEAN moves slowly if compared with other regional international organizations.
Caballero-Anthony & Haywood also say that “the ‘ASEAN way’ itself is not an entirely static concept and what has considered interference in the domestic affairs of a country is an evern widening notion” (Anthony and Haywood, 2010). According to Rodolfo C. Severino “…ASEAN has been cooperating through informal understandings that impose no legally binding obligations.” (Severino, 2001), despite this is a bit of an oversimplification according to Severino himself. As a matter of fact, ASEAN does not discard the rule of law and a handful of legally binding treaties indeed have been signed, mostly concerning free-trade agreements.
Caballero-Anthony and Haywood noticed that a change in the focus is happening, where the interest to maintain regional stability and security is slowly prevailing over the principle of non-interference. One might wonder that, if an act or a statement requires unanimous consensus, the organization could never adopt anything within a short time frame but there is an exception to this rule, the so-called “ASEAN minus X”.
This formula is based on the principle that the majority of the members will adopt the resolution and the other members will “catch up” later on. On one hand, without this clause ASEAN would be probably stuck in a limbo where without a very difficult-to-reach unanimity no effective decision can be taken. But, one the other hand, this clause has, in a way, failed what was the initial goal of the organization as not all the countries of the organization are on the same page regarding rights and economic status and the lack of a common, shared idea about an “ASEAN identity” is also in a way slowing down the process (Desker, 2015).
Myanmar joined ASEAN in 1997 and the move was considered a strategic one, as the hope was to keep Myanmar away from China’s and India’s influence. However, in the years that followed its entrance, little was actually done to improve the human rights condition in the country. More specifically, concerning the Myanmar-Rohingya crisis, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) offers a great perspective over the violence that ravaged the population and the lack of response by ASEAN. The negative factors that hampered ASEAN’s capability of leaving a mark were (ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), 2020):
- significant divisions among ASEAN Member States, which were exacerbated by a lack of leadership at the ASEAN Secretariat, and led some States to take individual action.
- Fear of China’s growing influence over Myanmar
- This lack of cohesion and long-term vision for ASEAN in Rakhine State
- unwavering commitment to consensus among ASEAN members
- ASEAN focused on specific issues only (in particular, the repatriation of refugees and humanitarian assistance). Those issues were agreed upon in advance with the government of Myanmar and more sensitive topics were left out of the discussion
- The response lacked transparency and engagement with civil society groups, humanitarian organizations and, most importantly, Rohingya people
- Within ASEAN there is a crucial lack of institutions with adequate mandate and expertise to respond to a crisis like the one of Rohingya and dispatched the ASEAN Humanitarian
In conclusion, what happened to the Rohingya population in Myanmar is, without a shadow of a doubt, a gross and evident violation of human rights and has even been called out as the perfect example of ethnic cleansing.
The main factor underplaying the efficacy of the international organization itself, according to a group of ASEAN Parliamentarians, is ASEAN itself. Its main rule, the one of non-interference and pursuit of common goals with patient and slow negotiations have proved to be far too slow and too unreliable to be a prompt response should an unexpected event of political nature happen.
Further concerns about the shyness of the organizations in tackling more sensitive topics were also expressed in the report by the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights since the efforts of ASEAN were merely focused on the distribution of items for the relief of the population and the Repatriation of refugees back in Rakhine (ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), 2020).
ASEAN has failed its duty to properly address the human rights violations of a member State and it has failed poorly considering that the position of Myanmar is utterly undefendable given the number of evidences against it.
If the organization seeks to improve its effectiveness more effort on binding rules and a faster way to reach a legally binding consensus are necessary steps to be made.
References
Ahmed, K. & Salahuddin, A. & Mohshin, H. (2019). Prevalence of violence against children: Evidence from 2017 Rohingya Refugee crises.
Anthony, M. and Haywood, H.,( 2010). Defining ASEAN’s Role In Peace Operations: Helping To Bring Peacebuilding “Upstream”?. Queanbeyan: Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence, p. 5
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR). (2020). ASEAN’S RAKHINE CRISIS Assessing the regional response to atrocities in Myanmar’s Rakhine State (pp. 48-53). APHR.
Baykan, D. (2019). UN Official Cites Horrific Crimes against Rohingya. TRANSCEND Media Service. Retrieved 26 December 2020, from https://www.transcend.org/tms/2019/02/un-official cites-horrific-crimes-against-rohingya/.
Bellamy, A. J. (2004). Security communities and their neighbours: Regional fortresses or global integrators? New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Broomfield, M. (2020). Nobel Peace Prize winner accused of overlooking ‘ethnic cleansing’ in her own country. The Independent. Retrieved 25 December 2020, from
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/burma-rohingya-myanmar-muslims-united nations-calls-suu-kyi-a7465036.html.
Islamist fears rise in rohingya linked violence. Bangkok Post Website. (2020). Retrieved 25 December 2020, from https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/asia/1111481/islamist-fears-rise-in rohingya-linked-violence.
Desker, B., 2015. ASEAN Integration Remains An Illusion | East Asia Forum. [online] East Asia Forum. Available at: <https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/04/02/asean-integration-remains-an illusion/> [Accessed 11 December 2020].
Desker, B., (2017) Is ASEAN A Community? | RSIS. [online] Rsis.edu.sg. Available at: <https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/co17145-is-asean-a-community/#.X9N0a1VKjIU> [Accessed 11 December 2020].
Islamist fears rise in rohingya linked violence. Bangkok Post Website. (2020). Retrieved 25 December 2020, from https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/asia/1111481/islamist-fears-rise-in rohingya-linked-violence.
OHCHR | Human Rights Council opens special session on the situation of human rights of the Rohingya and other minorities in Rakhine State in Myanmar. Ohchr.org. (2017) Retrieved 26 December 2020, from
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22491&LangID=E
Overview – ASEAN | ONE VISION ONE IDENTITY ONE COMMUNITY. ASEAN | ONE VISION ONE IDENTITY ONE COMMUNITY. (2020). Retrieved 25 December 2020, from https://asean.org/asean/about-asean/overview/.
Severino, R., 2001. THE ASEAN WAY AND THE RULE OF LAW – ASEAN | ONE VISION ONE IDENTITY ONE COMMUNITY. [online] ASEAN | ONE VISION ONE IDENTITY ONE COMMUNITY. Available at: <https://asean.org/?static_post=the-asean-way-and-the-rule-of-law> [Accessed 11 December 2020].
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
