Making ASEAN Works in Rohingya: A Southeast Asian Perspective

August 30, 2014/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar

Research Assistant at ASEAN Studies Center, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Rohingya has become the most ironic phennomenon in Southeast Asia. Since 1990s, they have been exiled, displaced from their homeland in northern Myanmar. According to UNHCR, almost 140,000 people still displaced in Rakhine State, while over 800,000 persons are estimated to be without citizenship in the northern part of the State. This conditions “were gravely concerned” by UNHCR and seem to be one of the biggest humanitarian challenge in Southeast Asia today.

However, while international community has expressed its concerns regarding the Rohingya problem, we also witness lack of responses from Government’s officials in Southeast Asia. Until present, there is no significant response from ASEAN as the biggest regional institution in Southeast Asia, who aims to construct a ‘political security community by 2015.

What went wrong with Rohingya and, in particular, ASEAN? I would like to analyze this problem from three level of analysis: the ‘communal identity’, state regime, and regional institution.

First, the Rohingya problem is related, most importantly, with the question of identity. If we want to identify Rohingya, there will be a question: “who are Rohing people? Are they Burmese, or belong to other nationals? Myanmar’s citizen act has ironically denied Rohing as one of their citizen, thus excluding the Rohing people out from Myanmar. However, they are also unable to be identified as Bangladeshi, for example, because they have inhabited the Burmese land since hundreds years ago, even before the British colonial age.

Thus, the main problems facing Rohing people now is the identity problem –the exclusion of Rohing from the existing Westphalian political order. This should be addressed more critically by International Relations scholars.

Second, the Rohingya problem is also closely related to the political authoritarianism in Myanmar who uses its political apparatuses to repress the Rohings and exile them out from the state. Even though the authoritarian government has been much more softened within these years, the Rohingya problem is still untouchable. According to Ahmad Suaedy, one of Indonesian activist who declared his support to minority groups in ASEAN People’s Forum 2014, any attempts to discuss the Rohingya problem was cut by the local Monk. Even the government stopped any attempts to discuss this issue at ASEAN meeting. Therefore, any attempts to find a political solution to Rohingya problem have been constrained by the authoritarian regime in Myanmar.

Third, the Rohingya problem is also aggravated by the lack of response from ASEAN Member States as well as the ASEAN Institution. This is ironic because since 2003, 10 ASEAN Member States have agreed to establish a political community in the region by 2015 and since 2009 they have signed the ASEAN Charter. According to the Charter, ASEAN shall become a ‘people-oriented organisation’ and there will be a Human Rights Body in ASEAN (Later known as ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights/AICHR). Even though the body has been established since 2009, it also faces incapacity in dealing with various human rights issues, including its silence in a ‘sensitive’ minority issue like Rohingya.

I argue that bringing Rohingya problem to bigger Southeast Asian level, or by using ASEAN Perspective, can fill the gap left by ‘identity’ or ‘authoritarian regime’. By placing Rohingya as ‘ASEAN People’, for example, we can identify the Rohing people without referring them to any particular Burmese identity. Bringing ASEAN to solve this problem will also be, idealistically, avoid the use of force in dealing with Rohing people. However, with the lack of capacity, ASEAN is still unable to do something to solve Rohingya problem.

Having said that, ASEAN’s incapability in dealing with Rohingya issue will be critically discussed. Why does ASEAN incapable to deal with Rohingya issue? To answer this question, I would like to look deeper into ASEAN’s institutional design. Since its inception in 1967, ASEAN seems to be perceived by many states as a room fit only for state’s purpose to cooperate. It did not, originally, provide space for non-state entity to participate in the decision-making process. Therefore, ASEAN, since its very beginning, tends to be state-centric or, in other words, ‘elitist’.

The construction of ASEAN as merely ‘a room for state’ was brought into discussion in 2003, when ASEAN Political Security Community was agreed in Bali. Each member states, at that time, agreed to create a regional community and, later, placed ASEAN as the main foreign policy focus. However, the state-centric nature in ASEAN was still preserved. The highest decision-making level in ASEAN is posited at the ASEAN Summit, which is attended only by state representatives. Therefore, there is no adequate room for non-state entity to influence the decision-making process.

The problem is similar in Human Rights issues –even worse. Even though ASEAN has included the establishment of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights in 2009, The Commission was not able to engage with any Human Rights cases in the region. This limitation was occurred due to lack of authority that the Commission owns in dealing with Human Rights cases. Thus, they are only able to make cooperation with other state in Human Rights issues. Another problem that is faced by the Commission is the low degree of democratization in several ASEAN Member States, including Myanmar. Many member states do not believe with democracy as well as Human Rights and even see them as threat for national sovereignty. The nature of authoritarian regime in ASEAN Member States prevents ASEAN to discuss prominent issues in Human Rights, even weaken the Human Rights Body itself.

Against this backdrop, this paper argues that state-centric nature in ASEAN Institutional Design and Mechanism is the main constraint in Rohingya problem. From previous experiences, that any attempts to establish a progressive Human Rights decision in ASEAN were prevented by the state. It leads to several controversies over the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, that was signed in 2012. This declaration was accused by Human Rights Activist as ‘legitimizing Human Rights violation by the state’. This declaration contains controversial points that were rejected by Human Rights activist, including “the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms must be balanced with the performance of corresponding duties as every person has responsibilities to all other individuals, the community and the society where one lives” (Article 6), the inclusion of term “in accordance to national law” (e.g. article 16, 17, 18). Civil society alliances have denounced the adoption of the Declaration and stating that the Declaration “falls far below international standards”.

With this controversy, it is evident that ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights has been incapable to deal with Human Rights violation in ASEAN Member States, including the Rohingya problem. Apart from that, ASEAN also does not have any instrument to regulate refugee. Consequently, the Rohingya refugee problems were left unmanaged by ASEAN, hence raising many derivative problems on other ASEAN Member States.

Thus, what is to be done? I argue that advocacy attempts to all level should be conducted continuously. However, there are two urgent agenda that could be exercised by all parties who wants to solve the Rohingya people. First, making ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) works in dealing with Rohingya problems. AICHR should be given further authorities to facilitate state in dealing with Human Rights issues as well as preventing the Human Rights violation. Since AICHR is filled by state representatives, they should be given adequate knowledge on basic Human Rights issue so that regional awareness on ASEAN can be built, at least among ASEAN officials.

Second, establishing ASEAN Refugee institution. ASEAN has never been prioritizing refugee issue since this issue was not a dominant issue in the region. However, with the emergence of Rohingya problem, ASEAN Refugee institution should be established. This institution can coordinate with UNHCR to manage Rohingya refugee in many Southeast and South Asia States. Therefore, the internally displaced persons (IDPs) problem can be managed well in the region. These important decisions should be advocated in the upcoming ASEAN Summit.

Latest Articles

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
Redefining Commodities in International Trade: ASEAN Blue Carbon Initiative and Its Role in Navigating Climate Crisis in the Southeast Asia RegionDecember 18, 2023 - 12:05 am
Korea-Indonesia Cooperation Forum in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of Diplomatic RelationsDecember 6, 2023 - 3:53 am
NACT Country Coordinators Meeting and Annual Conference 2023October 16, 2023 - 4:48 pm

Facebook

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
In December 2022, the Indonesian government passed a law that penalizes sex outside marriage. This is only one of the many changes in the criminal code that observers warn of the increasing conservatism in the country.

Indonesia houses the largest Muslim population in the world and is also a republic whose democratic experiences and milestones have been widely studied by scholars within and beyond the region. This makes Indonesia a compelling case for reflection on the nexus and tensions between religion and democracy. Is religion compatible with democracy? What opportunities and challenges does the “Islamic Renaissance” entail in the country? Democracy on Religion

Liberal democracy espouses secularism, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. In an “ideal” democratic system, the state must not endorse nor support any specific religion while guaranteeing the free exercise of religion among citizens. This is essential in a democracy for many reasons. Religious freedom is a crucial civil right that enhances citizens’ individuality and relations with others. It stops one religion from dominating society, hence promoting diversity and co-existence. At the same time, it prevents policies from being framed according to religious beliefs, which may result in discrimination and repression of fundamental human rights.

Religion and its Tensions with Democracy: The Case of Indonesia

This is particularly important for Indonesia. While the country is predominantly Muslim, Indonesia also has many ethnolinguistic groups with different cultures and practices. It is a challenge in itself to build one nation with an immensely heterogeneous society. The diversity in the country resulted in years of ethnic conflict and violence. Even a religious minority, the Ahmadiyya, faces intimidation and oppression in the exercise of their faith. Indonesia’s dilemma points to the longstanding debate in human rights discourse and practice – are human rights universal, or are they relative to culture and local customs? While I am more inclined to support the former, it is important to be aware and carefully consider the context of a country when designing human rights advocacy and interventions.

However imperfect, the democratization process in Indonesia has assisted in facilitating efforts for reconciliation and balancing competing interests in the country. Recently, the President stunned the world when he acknowledged past grave human rights abuses in the country, including an anti-communist purge in the ’60s and the arrest of democracy activists during the Suharto presidency.

Indonesia sits in between secularism and theocracy. The country’s fundamental law espouses Pancasila, which is the foundational political theory of Indonesia. Through its five principles, Indonesian society believes in one God and aspires to create a just and civilized humanity, unity, democracy, and social justice for all. This tells us that, by principle, Indonesia gives importance to pluralism and citizenship. Scholars and practitioners of the law also adopt legal pluralism and believe that different legal systems are complementary rather than contradictory. For example, community practices and customs are considered along with national and local regulations in settling disputes and conflicts at the village level.

However, in recent years, Indonesia has seen the expanding role of Islam in the country’s social and political life. Aside from Islam being a “source of ethical and cultural guidance”, many Islamic organizations have secured formal power, which allows them to easily introduce measures within the state apparatus that cement their own interests. Hardliner Islamic groups have also proliferated, and fundamentalist thought and practices are becoming more and more widespread. Islamic identity politics have also been evident since Widodo coalesced with conservative Islamic factions and appointed Amin, an influential Islamic figure, as his vice president. The new penal code tends to be more religious than secular. This has implications for Indonesia’s supposed secularism and diversity. How can the Indonesian government best represent the interests and aspirations of all?

As Indonesia continues to modernize and extend its economic and political ascendancy in the region, rapid changes in its social relations and dynamics are also expected. This demands a more careful look at the kind of laws and “social controls” that the government enforces. Suppose conservative forces are forwarding laws in the name of protecting tradition and keeping Indonesian values in check. In that case, it should not be at the expense of fundamental civil and political liberties, nor should it be to repress vulnerable groups even further, such as women, LGBT+, and ethnic communities. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Hence, political representation must reflect the diversity and vibrance of Indonesian society. If only one group dominates political and policy discourse, it ultimately jeopardizes the general will.

When religion becomes the yardstick for crafting rules and policies, it creates biases, whether intended or not. Propositions that are credible and necessary but “contradictory” to a certain religion may be rejected simply because they do not fit the personal convictions of decision-makers. Integrating religion into politics usually leads to oppressive and harmful policymaking. Religion is also a form of heuristics or cognitive shortcut that devalues deliberation and discussion. Instead of scrutinizing issues, people may resort to using their religion as the sole basis for their position on a particular matter. Democracies ought to be deliberative and pluralistic.

Human rights activists and organizations in Indonesia have sounded the alarm on many changes in the criminal code that could stifle individual freedoms and lead to setbacks in the country’s democratic progress. Aside from banning sex outside marriage, the government also reinstated laws that criminalize insulting the President and other state officials and institutions. They also increased the punishment for blasphemy. These laws can be disproportionately used against individuals and groups with legitimate criticisms and concerns about the government. It may also render already marginalized communities even more vulnerable. Religion, Populism, and Repression

This trend is not only unique to Indonesia. Much of the world has seen the rise of “nationalist” movements, often within the pretext of religion and safeguarding culture. India’s Modi has exhibited Hindu nationalist tendencies, which have meant greater intolerance against the Muslim minority in the country. Myanmar’s Tatmadaw has weaponized Buddhism to rally support from the public and account for its atrocities.

The use of religion to justify repressive and oppressive regimes is apparent. Religion is an effective tool to unify a group of people and subject them to a specific set of beliefs and values, which may be highly prejudiced and absurd. Religion acts as a moral compass that defines what is right and what is wrong. Because religion is subjective, it can easily be manipulated to serve political objectives. Populists and autocrats can bastardize religion to create a public enemy, instill an “us vs them” mentality, and sow further polarization.

Failed democracies thrive out of fear, whether it is real or manufactured. Religion can be a potent force to ingrain this fear. This hysteria against change and modernization is easy to whip up when people already have preexisting beliefs. It is not too difficult to segregate people and label them as the “other”. When this distinction is entrenched, it is convenient to normalize discrimination and violence.

It is said that Indonesia is a model for “Moderate Islam” when compared to the Middle East; the “Indonesian way” can complement Western values and democracy. It also has the potential to correct Islamophobia and promote Islam as a religion of peace. On the other hand, if Indonesia cannot find its balance and condone fundamentalist and hardliner Islamic groups to flourish, Indonesia will certainly regress in its hard-won democratic gains.

Religion has inherent contradictions with democracy. Subscribing to a religion and structuring a supposedly diverse society using its tenets is monopolistic and can bring about intolerance. It is paramount for democracies to ensure that civil, political, and socioeconomic rights are not deprived based on religion and other forms of cleavages. The access and exercise of power should be as widely distributed as possible. Public office should not be limited to certain political clans or religious organizations. For instance, at the village level, cultural and socioeconomic elites must share power and administration with vulnerable and historically marginalized groups. There are more reasons and illustrative cases, present and past, to posit that religion is more of a bane than a boon to democracy. At the moment in world history when (dis)information is fast and instant, we must maintain vigilance in dealing with autocratic agendas in the guise of “respecting” values and tradition. It is easier to believe and conform than to reflect and deliberate. But democracy dies when we rely on shortcuts to define what is good for us. Democracy dies, slowly and deliberately, when we allow a few to sabotage our freedoms and liberties to increase their own. Demagogues and despots are usually cunning and do things “in the name of God”.

REFERENCES

Evans, M. S. (2014). Religion and political decision making. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53(1), 145–163. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

Evans, T. (2012). Separation of Mosque and State in Indonesia. Policy, 27(4), 35–39.

Głodek, A., & Grzywacz, A. (2020). Indonesia – between religion and democracy, Warsaw: Boym Institute. Retrieved from https://instytutboyma.org/en/indonesia-between-religion-and-democracy

Jaffrey, S. (2020). Is Indonesia Becoming a Two-Tier Democracy?, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jamaluddin, M., Chen, H. & Watson, A. (2022). Indonesia bans sex outside marriage as parliament passes sweeping new criminal code, Jakarta: CNN.

Klinken, G. v. (2019). Living in a Sacred Cosmos: Indonesia and the Future of Islam. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 175(1), 81–135. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

McWilliams, E. (2018). Democracy in Indonesia: A Progress Report, Washington D.C.: The Foreign Service Journal.

Nagda, A. (2020). The Diplomat. [Online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/the-islamization-of-indonesias-foreign-policy/

Omelicheva, M. & Ahmed, R. (2018). Religion and politics: examining the impact of faith on political participation. Religion, State, and Society, 46(1), 4–25.

The World Factbook. (2023). Indonesia, s.l.: Central Intelligence Agency.

Wieringa, S. E. (2006). Islamization in Indonesia: Women Activists’ Discourses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32 (1), 40–27.

Short Biography:

Kay Conales is a student of the Asia Pacific-Master of Arts in Human Rights and Democratization of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP) of Mahidol University (Thailand). She also studied in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL) of APMA’s partner-university Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia). She can be reached through e-mail at ksconales@gmail.com.

Making ASEAN Works in Rohingya: A Southeast Asian Perspective

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US