Criticizing the Handling of Rohingya Refugees in Southeast Asia by ASEAN and Its Members

*Widya Priyahita Pudjibudojo  -  Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Received: 6 Sep 2019; Revised: 16 Sep 2019; Accepted: 18 Sep 2019; Published: 31 Oct 2019; Available online: 31 Oct 2019.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2019 Politika: Jurnal Ilmu Politik
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Citation Format:
Abstract

This article is a combination of scientific and policy papers. It will critically review how the Rohingya refugees were handled in Southeast Asia. The method used is qualitative policy analysis. The author will compare the statements contained in the ASEAN Charter, the Blueprint of the ASEAN Political-Security Community, and the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights (AHRD) as legal umbrellas which guarantee the fulfilment of human rights in Southeast Asia with the policy responses of ASEAN and some of its members (Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia) toward the flow of Rohingya refugees. The policy analysis will target the substance and implications of the refugees. In general, there are two approaches to refugee policies, ‘security’ with an orientation toward state sovereignty and ‘humanism (human security)’ which is pro-refugee. The author uses the second approach as a framework and a standing position. Based on the results of the analysis, the security approach is far more dominant in the handling of Rohingya than humanism. The wave of Rohingya refugees is read as a security threat, economic burden, potential cultural issue, and other negative things that ultimately put the refugees in a worse position. The author criticizes this and suggests a number of recommendations to pursue a more humanistic approach.

Keywords: human security approach; refugees handling policy; Rohingya refugees

Article Metrics:

  1. Alkire, S. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Human Security. Retrieved from http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/crisewps/workingpaper2.pdf
  2. ASEAN. (2009a). ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint. Retrieved from http://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/archive/5187-18.pdf
  3. ASEAN. (2009b). Chairman’s Statement of the 14th ASEAN Summit “ASEAN Charter for ASEAN Peoples.” Retrieved from http://asean.org/?static_post=chairman-s-statement-of-the-14th-asean-summit-asean-charter-for-asean-peoples
  4. BBC. (2012). Indonesia Committed to Protecting Rohingya Community in Burma-Minister.
  5. Cheung, S. (2011). Journal of Refugee Studies. 25(1), 50–70.
  6. Crock, M. (20014). Shadow Plays, Shifting Sands and International Refugee Law: Convergences in the Asia Pacific.
  7. ESPMI Network. (2015). Refugee Review: Re-conceptualizing Refugees and Forced Migration in the 21st Century.
  8. Fiske, L. (2015). Human Rights and Refugee Protest Against Detention. Palgrave Macmillan.
  9. Fortify Rights and BROUK. (2016). Everywhere is Trouble: An Update on the Situation of Rohingya Refugees in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
  10. Global Legal Research Center. (2016). Refugee Law and Policy in Selected Countries. The Law Library of Congres.
  11. JRS Asia Pasific. (2012). The Search Protection Space in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Cambodia and the Philippines. Retrieved from www.jrsap.org
  12. Kneebone, S. (2014). The Bali process and global refugee policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Journal of Refugee Studies, Oxford University, 27(4), 596–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feu015
  13. Loescher, G., & Milner, J. (2005). Protracted Refugee Situations: Domestic and International Security. London: Routledge.
  14. Mathew, P., & Harley, T. (2014). Refugee Protection and Regional Cooperation in Southeast Asia: A Fieldwork Report. Retrieved from http://www.mcrg.ac.in/WC_2015/Reading/D_RefugeeProtection.pdf
  15. Mathew, P., & Harley, T. (2016). Refugee, Reginalism, and Responsibiity. Elgar Studies in Human Right.
  16. News, I. (2009). Key Asian Meeting Fails to Resolve Rohingya Issue. Retrieved from http://www.irinnews.org/news/2009/04/17/key-asian-meeting-fails-resolve-rohingya-issue
  17. Parr, S. F., & Messineo, C. (2012). Human Security: A Critical Review of The Literature (No. Working Paper No. 11.). Retrieved from https://soc.kuleuven.be/web/files/12/80/wp11.pdf
  18. Rachmah, R. A., & Pestalozzi, Z. E. (2016). Hidup yang Terabaikan; Laporan Penelitian Nasib Pengungsi Rohingya di Indonesia.
  19. Rukumnuaykit, P. (2009). Synthesis Report on Labour Migration Policies, Management and Immigration Pressure in Thailand.
  20. Singh, B. (2014). ASEAN, Myanmar and the Rohingya Issue. Himalayan and Central Asian Studies, 18(1), 5-20.
  21. Smith, M. (2010). Crimes against Humanity in Western Burma: The Situation of the Rohingyas. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordburmaalliance.org/uploads/9/1/8/4/9184764/ichr_rohingya_report_2010.pdf
  22. Stritzel, H. (2014). Security in Translation Securitization Theory and the Localization of Threat. Palgrave Macmillan.
  23. The Jakarta Post. (2015). RI Should Accept Rohingya Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/05/19/ri-should-accept-rohingya-refugees-muhammadiyah.html
  24. UNHCR. (2016). Indonesia Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://reporting.unhcr.org/node/10335?y=2016#year
  25. UNHCR Malaysia. (2015). Figures at Glance. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org.my/About_Us-@-Figures_At_A_Glance.aspx
  26. Voice of America. (2009). Controversy Over Future of Burmese Refugees in Thailand - 2003-06-16. Retrieved from https://www.voanews.com/archive/controversy-over-future-burmese-refugees-thailand-2003-06-16
  27. Yayasan Gutanyoe. (2016). Hidup dalam Penentian: Setahun Pengungsi Rohingya di Aceh.