Post on 11-Jun-2022
THE ROHINGYAS: ASEAN’S EXAMPLE OF
HUMAN RIGHTS MOVING IN REVERSE
BY
MR SHERWAN JOMKHAMSING
AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN
PARTIALFULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
(INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS)
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2014
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
THE ROHINGYAS: ASEAN’S EXAMPLE OF
HUMAN RIGHTS MOVING IN REVERSE
BY
MR SHERWAN JOMKHAMSING
AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN
PARTIALFULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
(INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS)
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2014
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
(1)
Independent Study Title THE ROHINGYAS:
ASEAN’S EXAMPLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
MOVING IN REVERSE
Author Mr Sherwan Jomkhamsing
Degree Master of Political Science
(International Relations)
Major Field/Faculty/University International Relations (English Program),
Faculty of Political Science
Thammasat University
Advisor Professor Jaran Maluleem, Ph. D
Academic Years 2014
ABSTRACT
ASEAN still struggles significantly in implementing one of the most
fundamental necessity for its people, as prescribed in its own Charter of the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (hereinafter referred to as ASEAN Charter) in the Preamble,
“… respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedom”. Its ambitious
goal of building a strong, cohesive and prosperous community in order to promote
development and prosperity for its peoples is critically challenged globally for its
inability to address serious issues regarding human rights in its region.
In this respect, the researcher would like to pick one of the thirty human
rights clauses, regarding the “Right to Nationality” as prescribed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948, Article 15, to construct this
research and assess it with one of the most current and controversial issue in ASEAN,
that is, the crisis of the Rohingyas in Myanmar. The people of Rohingyas have no
citizenship recognized by any state, no place to take refuge and the most alarming part,
no place to return to. With no national citizenship, the tribe is faced with inconceivable
hardships; they have become the human targets of various social injustices, having been
stripped of their basic human rights and along with them, their human dignity. Not only
does the statelessness of the Rohingyas affect Myanmar, it has caused hundreds of
(2)
thousands of Rohingyas to flee from their land and seek refuge in neighboring countries
affecting the whole Southeast Asian region. As the regional organization, it is
ASEAN’s duty to address this issue. Astonishingly, ASEAN did not take serious
measures into resolving this issue. This raised various concerns and criticism of how
ASEAN is treating its human rights violator’s member countries or what is ASEAN’s
stance on issues as such. In this regards, this research will use the example of the current
state of the Rohingyas as the case study to elaborate the gap between the internationally
recognized term of human rights and the ASEAN’s perspectives on how the
organization has agreed to recognize it. Moreover, this research will discuss the reasons
preventing ASEAN from confronting such issues and predict if there are any
possibilities that these can change in the future.
Keywords: ASEAN, Rohinyas, Human Rights, Genocide, Ethnic Persecution,
Myanmar, Sovereignty, International Community
(3)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Dr Jaran
Maluleem who has shown compassion in his teachings of Islam and the Muslim
brotherhood combining with International Relations, and has made possible for me to
work on a topic that has great interest to me. I would like to thank my professor and
mentor, Dr Pisawat Sukonthapan for her perceptions and passionate discussions in
regards to this topic during our dinner meetings. In addition, I would like to thank my
dear friend, Mr Kittipot Boochangkool who has shared his greatest concerns regarding
the seriousness of this issue to me since my bachelor degree.
My chapter in MIR would not have been complete without all the lovely
MIR 16 friends who have shared the time, the struggle, and the happiness together in
these two profound years. My special thanks to Sebastian Poggel without whom
studying would not have been this enjoyable, Mr Chawal Parwasuthikarn and Mr
Miguel Fuentes for guidance and assistance in terms of studies and the assignments that
we have completed together throughout the MIR years, and Mr Sandy Saluya for my
never-ending fountain of motivation.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my partner, Ms Saralee
Wacheeworasit and my family for their greatest and never-ending support for my
education, inspiration, and well-being. I dedicate all my achievements in life to my
mother, the hero of my life.
Mr Sherwan Jomkhamsing
(4)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT (1)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (3)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (6)
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Significance of the Problem 1
1.2 Research Questions 2
1.3 Research Objectives 3
1.4 Hypothesis 3
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 7
3.1 Research Methodology 7
3.2 Theoretical Approach 7
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
4.1 Understanding the Structure of ASEAN and its Perception on
Human Rights 10
4.1.1 ASEAN’s Development and Drawbacks 10
4.1.2 The ASEAN Charter 11
4.1.3 The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights (AICHR) 14
(5)
4.2 Case Study of the Rohingyas in Myanmar 15
4.3 Case Study Analysis 23
4.3.1 Universal vs. ASEAN’s perception of Human Rights 23
4.3.2 Right to Nationality of the Rohingyas 24
4.3.3 Interpretation of Legal Instruments 26
4.4 Examination of ASEAN’s Reality and Expectations 29
CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 32
5.1 Recommendations 32
5.2 Conclusion 33
REFERENCES 35
BIOGRAPHY 40
(6)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Symbols/Abbreviations Terms
AICHR
ACWC
ASEAN
EU
IDP
UDHR
ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission
on Human Rights
ASEAN Commission on the Promotion
& Protection of the Rights of Women &
Children
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
European Union
Internally Displaced People
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UN United Nations
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugee
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Significance of the Problem
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) created by the United
Nations - which is one of the principals that all ASEAN members upholds in accordance
to the ASEAN Charter, article 2 Principles, 2. (j) - has laid upon the 30 basic human
rights that every single human being is entitled to have for simply being a human
regardless of any political or social status. However, although ASEAN has vowed to
adhere to the protection of human rights (and showed progress) by establishing its
human rights body (Bangkok.ohchr.org, 2015), its capability to address any human
rights issue in its member countries is still far from being admissible.
Looking into this matter by legal aspects, this research shall outline the
current ASEAN constitution and its established bodies that concern human rights and
this matter. It will closely examine what ASEAN has constituted in regards of human
rights and what practices are preventing it from confronting this issue. Using the case
study of the Rohingyas, the research will explore the background history of the issue,
understanding the roots and history of the tribe, their living conditions in Myanmar, the
outbreak of the events which led to the crisis as we know today, and Myanmar’s
reformation (in its political and economic transition) which is turning a blind eye in the
human rights abuses in its own state. Lastly, by observing the approaches and actions
taken by ASEAN and evaluating with its outcome, the research may question into what
might be a direction to resolve this humanitarian crisis in the region.
The researcher would like to develop a research that can contribute a new
variable, challenging to the reality of ASEAN, but at the same time be possible to
happen (even though it will not be practical in the near future). The research’s variable,
in some sense, must have immediate impact on both ASEAN and the country that the
matter is concerned. In this modern age of globalization where ASEAN is committed
to form into a regional economic community by 2015(Asean.org, 2015), if ASEAN still
2
chose not to seriously commit to addressing the human rights issue in its region, it will
definitely attract more criticism and lose its credibility in the international stage.
After reviewing the actions that the international community and various
international humanitarian organization has responded to this nationality issue
concerning the mass killing and dehumanization of the Rohingyas in Myanmar from
various internet sites and newspapers, one may question what are the measures that can
be taken to prevent such crisis which is currently happening in our modern society.
Some of the proposed solutions that the researcher came across for this issue includes
applying economic sanctions to Myanmar so that the country will alter its behavior
(John, 2009), or for the country to seek and allow assistance from humanitarian
organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR).
It is true that more than a million Rohingyas are currently present in Rakhine state in
Myanmar and along the borders of Bangladesh; many are trying to travel by boat to
Thailand and Malaysia (Radio Free Asia, 2015), all barely surviving on a day to day
basis. Even with the help of UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations, they can
only aid up to not more than 400,000 refugees in their programs (Refugees, 2015). The
bottom line, therefore, is not solving the problem at the surface, however, search for a
concrete guideline to understand and (hopefully) contribute into a reference that the
studies of ASEAN can use to develop in the future.
This research paper will closely examine how ASEAN (as the regional
organization) has responded to Myanmar, both formally and informally, in resolving
this issue.
1.2 Research Questions
The research will also focus on the below mentioned research questions
that might help guide to understand the reasons of the actions and inactions of ASEAN:
1. Why is ASEAN not addressing the crisis of Rohingyas although the
protection of human rights is the fundamental clause of the ASEAN Charter?
2. According to ASEAN, is the human rights violation in regards of the
Rohingyas categorized as a Political-Security issue or a Socio-Cultural issue? What are
the differences and its affects?
3
3. How can ASEAN address and approach Myanmar’s Rohingya issue
without offending the country’s sovereignty?
1.3 Research Objectives
To understand the structure, values, and norms of ASEAN as a regional
organization. In addition, examine its strong points, weaknesses, and limitations of
addressing non-compliance of its member states.
To understand the written legal bodies of ASEAN including its constitution
and human rights bodies and evaluate its effectiveness.
To benefit researchers who are interested in learning about the legal
framework of regional organizations.
To use the case study of the crisis of the Rohingyas to assess ASEAN’s
stance in terms of human rights violation in the region. This research place serious
concerns regarding human rights abuse in the society in our modern society.
1.4 Hypothesis
In answering the above-mentioned questions, the hypothesis of the research
is formulated as simple predicted answers that could also explain the questions
accordingly. The direction of the discussions will be based upon the ASEAN’s
constitution, The ASEAN Charter. In addition, some key differences in the ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) under the ASEAN
Political – Security Blueprint, and the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion &
Protection of the Rights of Women & Children (ACWC) under the ASEAN Socio –
Cultural Blueprint will be pointed out to see how (and why) ASEAN addressed the term
“Human Rights” differently in both blueprints and what are the effects of doing so.
1. ASEAN upholds the general principle of non-interference (ASEAN-
Way) more than the unenforceable clause to protect human rights.
2. According to the views of ASEAN, the human rights violation of the
Rohingyas in Myanmar is a Socio-Cultural issue.
4
3. The statelessness crisis of the Rohingyas could be resolved by the
establishment of a Human Rights mechanism that can issue and enforce specific
policies and regulations that are mutually agreed upon by all ASEAN members.
5
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
One of the limitations of this research is that, although the human rights
violation of the Rohingyas has been one of the most controversial topics of this decade,
there are very few books written in regards to it, let alone any connection with this topic
to ASEAN. Although the social injustice and inhumane treatment of the tribe has been
ongoing for decades since the citizenship law, the wake of the crisis has only occurred
in 2012. Therefore, Ahmed Jilani’s, A cultural history of Rohingya and Greg
Constatine’s, Exile to Nowhere, Burma’s Rohingya only gives the information
regarding the background and hardship of the tribe. There are no insight books linking
or analytically criticizing this crisis in Myanmar with the international community yet.
Fortunately, the researcher was able to locate two books in Thammasat’s
library which touched some aspects of this topic. The first book is Barak Kalir and
Malini Sur’s Transnational Flows and Permissive Polities (Enthnographies of Human
Mobilities in Asia) which compared migration workers from different parts of the world
in the post-imperial age. The book concluded in regards of the Rohingyas stating that
modern liberal state, governed by the rule of law, must seek to use legal instruments in
the management of its population (Kalir and Sur, 2012). Similarly, the second book,
Tang Lay Lee’s, Statelessness, Human Rights and Gender (Irregular Migrant Workers
from Burma in Thailand) concluded that the absence of regional instruments and low
number of ratifications to the conventions on statelessness indicate that the protection
of stateless persons in South East Asia has to be sought under international instruments
(Tang, 2005). The two books similarly focused on the migration and stateless issues of
the Rohingyas with its neighboring country and concluded with the requirement of the
state and region to engage in legal pathways to deal with the issue. This is however, not
practical in the foreseeable future considering ASEAN’s pace in handling with this
issue, yet, it is not impossible in the studies of international relations. As the literature
is scarce regarding this topic, the researcher shall focus more from the institutional
perspectives referring to the ASEAN’s constitution, the ASEAN Charter, and its two
established human rights
6
body; the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and
ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and
Children (ACWC). The research shall analyze the clauses and implementation of the
clauses in the abovementioned documents. Moreover, this research will refer to the
discussion paper of Regional Expert Roundtable on Good Practices for the
Identification, Prevention and Reduction of Stateless Persons in South East Asia
conducted by the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand and the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Refugees, 2015), and the publication of Dr
Sriprapha Petchramesree, The Human Rights Body: A Test for Democracy Building in
ASEAN as guidance in assessing ASEAN’s human rights bodies and what are the
necessary frameworks into creating an effective human rights body that would be
agreeable, practical, and enforceable among the member states of ASEAN.
The relevant topics that this research has touched upon in order to
understand the root of knowledge includes, why legal bodies are important when
dealing with states or international actors, why use Neoliberal Institutionalism to assess
and propose the solution for this issue, and human rights in its general meaning and the
importance of human rights in the society. Philosophy of Law written by Dr Somyos
Chuathai has included various important theories of great historic philosophers
explaining the history of law and legal bodies in the making. This book has also outlined
the importance of using law as the tool to solve issues that is accepted by the public
without the interference of passion and discrimination.The Meanings of Rights, The
Philosophy and Social Theory of Human Rights of Costas Douzinas depicts the essence
of how the society has perceived the term human rights since its origin and development
until the term which is used in today’s modern society. This book accurately debated
the gap of the term of human rights in its theoretic meaning and how the reality is. As
this research emphasized ASEAN as the main actor, International Relations in
Southeast Asia, The Struggle for Autonomy of Donald E. Weatherbee explains the
current situation of ASEAN’s development as the regional organization and its struggle
for harmonization, and unification of the ten member states who are diverse in their
history, background, culture, norms, practices, national interests, alliance, domestic
issues and international issues in the international community.
7
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Methodology
The research study will be conducted using a qualitative approach relying
on both primary and secondary sources focusing in depth on ASEAN constitution and
its human rights bodies, and the Rohingyas tribe of Myanmar. The first aspect will focus
on understanding ASEAN and its prospect of developing a human rights mechanism
for the organization. In this regard, I would like to conduct interviews with professors
specialized in ASEAN and International Law for new and different perceptions of
establishing a legal entity or mechanism of the organization. The second aspect is to
truly understand what is happening to the people of Rohingyas and what future do they
see in this time of crisis. The secondary sources of information are from journals,
literature, and news from newspapers and the internet regarding the crisis of the
Rohingyas.
3.2 Theoretical Approach
This research uses the Neoliberal Institutionalism (Neoliberalism) as the
theory/ approach to analyze and recommend the solution for the issue. The core of this
theory derives from the original Liberalism theory. This theory emphasizes on human’s
capacity to rationally learn from past mistakes resulting as the possibility of progress.
It places weight on human’s faith in reasoning and rationality because it believes that
human being are truly good in their nature and thrives to pursue means in acquiring
better peace, stability, and justice for its kind. Combining these essences through
toleration and justice, human race can win over their fear and the lust of power in the
anarchic and chaotic nature of global governance. World politics is nothing but the
product of different ideas of leaders in the international community. The changes of
trends that accepts new ideologies defining what is socially and morally acceptable in
any given era brings about changes in the fabric of the
8
international community throughout the history of mankind. However, these changes
are most effectively put to force by the creation of acceptable norms and institutions
that can regulate the anarchic system. Neoliberalism focuses on the important role and
beneficial impact of international institutions. The international institutions can act as
the arena in which states and/or members can interact and cooperate to solve common
problems collectively through different means (such as arbitration, negotiation,
mediation, etc.) as long as the arena can serve as the tool for conflict prevention.
Cooperation can lead to progress because actors are given the space to learn about their
mistakes and gain mutual understanding through dialogues. Moreover, cooperation
with different actors intensifies greater and more complex interdependence among
actors causing them to be more reluctant in turning away from the agreed norms of the
institution. In this sense, the atmosphere has created a dilemma for the actors to choose
between the better benefit of what they could have received by complying with the
agreed norms, and the losses of noncompliance. Even when the institution is put into
place, it can still further improve in its effectiveness by the enforcement of
accountabilities for the negative consequences that the members have caused. It creates
a framework and guideline in which the actors can follow for peace and collaboration.
In context, the global governance is the sum of different international
institutions whose reason for being is the management of transnational problems in a
peaceful, humane, and most of the time legal way. In this sense, any regularized set of
expectations or behavior is an institution,” (Baylis and Smith, 2001). Needless to say,
ASEAN too, is an institution established for mutual goals of prosperity in various
aspects for its members and for the region. A state can aspire to make substantial
improvements in the global condition. This can be seen in Myanmar’s eagerness for its
reformation during the past decade (BBC News, 2015). Moreover, Neoliberalism points
that under the conditions of globalization, the states will change its behavior to adapt
with the international community for the enhancement of the state’s economy. The
interconnectedness factor of globalization will boost the formation of deeper level of
interdependence among states.
In ASEAN’s case, we can clearly see how the region has already signed up
to form a regional community after the Asian financial crisis in 1997 (Iem.ro, 2015).
9
This is because the members together saw a weak spot in the economic
sphere of the region and responded to it. Although the process took more than a decade,
a solution was embodied using the Neoliberal approach. It is a matter of time before
very critical humanitarian issues (such as this) in the region will mark a new scar in the
region’s reputation and affect its stability, economic and security. When the time
comes, ASEAN will have to collectively again turn to form an affective mechanism to
solve the problem as a region. Although ASEAN has recently established its own
human rights body, the objectives lain down are too vaguely written which does not
require formal prescription or enforcement by the member countries. Moreover, the line
is not drawn on how to address the issue in the event that any member state violates the
human rights within its territory.
Nevertheless, we may monitor into how ASEAN concerns regarding its
image, reputation and collective identity. The ASEAN Charter has clearly stated for the
member to respect for fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human
rights, and the promotion of social justice. Although currently the states are to uphold
the principle of non-interference firmly, there are no doubts that this norm, will too,
weakened in time after the formation of the community. As the result, humanitarian
crisis (as such) will be tackled with an enforcing institutionalized body from the
organization, reassuring the international stage that ASEAN is not only an organization
with concerns for economic integration but also the integrity and dignity of human
rights.
10
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Understanding the Structure of ASEAN and its Perception on Human Rights
4.1.1 ASEAN’s Development and Drawbacks
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) formed on 8th August
1967 currently consists of ten Southeast Asian countries including Brunei, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
These smaller states were not recognized as major powers throughout the course of
history. However so, since its commitment to integrate into a region and single market,
all these ten member states combined as one organization has formulated ASEAN to
become a unique political and economical bloc of significant importance in the
international arena. With the population of over 600 million people, the combined GDP
of more than 2.3 trillion US dollars, and the geographic location situated in the middle
of Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean and South China Sea, ASEAN has marked its
importance in the international community in terms of trade and economy, alliances,
sphere of influences, military strategic location, partnership and more. Although
ASEAN is still not seen as a power, it has shown in the past decades that it has become
the bloc that has been able to influence the major powers such as United States, China,
and Japan in their foreign policies and international relationship toward each other, and
also towards ASEAN. However, ASEAN still struggles significantly into becoming a
solid organization due to lack of common dialogue, enforceable norms, and
continuation of common practice.
The organization suffers from weighing the conflicting importance of
regional multilateralism and at the same time not losing grasp of its solidarity, the
ASEAN Centrality. ASEAN members itself has not reached the stage of solid
unification among each other. There is a very far gap of development and connectivity,
conflicting national and international interests, and level of trust among the members
of ASEAN. The organization pursues to integrate for common goals, yet, lacks the
common enforceable mechanism in order to acquire such goals. With this in mind,
11
ASEAN struggles as an organization to maintain strong relationship with each other,
the member states also has their own agendas, practices and various bilateral
agreements with other outside states. One of the most problematic issues of ASEAN is
how to address any wrongdoings of their member states that is hindering ASEAN in its
path of development. In this regards, the concern of human rights abuses is definitely
in the spotlight and is critically challenged by the international community. To remedy
serious issues in the region, ASEAN turns to its most fundamental value of using
“communication” as its main tool to establish stages and platforms to create
opportunities for members and outsiders to come together and discuss such issues.
Although in most occasions, serious matters or issues were not put on the table or raised
on these events, this mechanism has, to a certain extent, assisted in promoting
interactions of these actors under the roof of ASEAN. Nevertheless, to confirm the
seriousness of regional integration, ASEAN has confirmed of its legal status and set out
its legal body as the framework of the organization. This research shall therefore, assess
the legal framework – which is given weight as the most concrete material of the
organization - of ASEAN in questioning and challenging its loopholes in regards to
why issues such as human rights abuses is not, and may not, be addressed from
ASEAN’s perspective.
4.1.2 The ASEAN Charter
The ASEAN Charter was adopted as the constitution for the ASEAN at the
13th ASEAN Summit in November 2007 (Asean.org, 2015). The purpose was to lay a
concrete foundation for this association which has existed for more than 40 years with
no written constitution. The Charter aims for ASEAN’s integration and transformation
to become a community emphasizing on 4 main focuses:
1. respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
member states;
2. peaceful settlement of disputes;
3. non-interference in member states internal affairs; and again
4. the right to live without “external interference.
ASEAN confirmed of its legal personality in its Article 3 of the ASEAN
Charter that, “ASEAN, as an inter-governmental organization, is hereby conferred legal
12
personality.” In addition, it has set forth its rights and obligation, hence its duty in
Article 5 (3), “In the case of serious breach of the Charter or non-compliance, the matter
shall be referred to Article 20.” Unfortunately, the Article 20 (1, 2, and 4) under
Consultation and Consensus has laid out very shortcoming practices which are below
the international standards which states, “1. As a basic principle, decision-making in
ASEAN shall be based on consultation and consensus”, “2. Where consensus cannot
be achieved, the ASEAN Summit may decide how a specific decision can be made,”
and, “4. In the case of a serious breach of the Charter or noncompliance, the matter shall
be referred to the ASEAN Summit for decision.” This particularly means that an issue
would have to be put on hold until it can be brought up formally in an ASEAN Summit
which is held only once a year and all members must agree to it as a serious matter of
concern by consensus to then address the issue. If these steps did not follow through,
the issue will have to be put aside and then (possibly) be addressed again the following
year in the following pattern.
The main reason for such practice is because ASEAN projects a family
image, preferring inclusion and compromise to isolation and judgment, the ASEAN
Way (Masilamani and Peterson, 2014). The ASEAN Way can be described as a
distinctive and agreed approach of ASEAN members. This approach is based on shared
and acceptance of common behavioral norms (Weatherbee and Emmers, 2005). Any
disputes over member states' behavior will be dealt with on the basis of consultation
and consensus is the principles that ASEAN holds dear. This custom is strictly
embedded in the heart of the Charter, “Respecting: the fundamental importance of
amity and cooperation, and the principles of sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity,
non-interference, consensus and unity in diversity.” Fortifying the norm, Article 2 (2),
the Principle states, “ASEAN and its Member States shall act in accordance with the
following Principles: (a) respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial
integrity and national identity of all ASEAN Member States; (e) non-interference in the
internal affairs of ASEAN Member States; (f) respect for the right of every Member
State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion and
coercion; and (g) enhanced consultations on matters seriously affecting the common
interest of ASEAN.”
13
Nevertheless, the Charter still acts as a milestone of a concrete structure
that has value to set a clear and focused direction for ASEAN, the first time in forty-
one years of the organization’s history. This structure has laid the framework to address
non-compliance with agreements and settle disputes in an objective and binding matter.
Without this Charter, ASEAN would not have the agreed-upon criteria for its members
to account for adverse impacts. As mentioned earlier, the Charter is legally binding, as
all ten member states ratified it before the 14th ASEAN Summit in December 2008.
Myanmar also ratified this Charter on 18 July 2008(Reuters, 2015); meaning that all
the provisions stated in the Charter are binding to the country too and it shall be retained
accountable for its illegal actions in region.
In terms of human rights, the ASEAN Charter has set forth its principles as
follows: Preamble of ASEAN Charter: “ADHERING to the principles of democracy,
the rule of law and good governance, respect for and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms.”
Article 1 Purposes: “7. To strengthen democracy, enhance good
governance and the rule of law, and to promote and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms, with due regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Member
States of ASEAN, 11. To enhance the well-being and livelihood of the peoples of
ASEAN by providing them with equitable access to opportunities for human
development, social welfare and justice.”
Article 2 Principles: “2. ASEAN and its Member States shall act in
accordance with the following Principles: (i) respect for fundamental freedoms, the
promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice; and (j)
upholding the United Nations Charter and international law, including international
humanitarian law, subscribed to by ASEAN Member States.”
The ASEAN Charter demanded a Human Rights body in Article 14: “1. In
conformity with the purposes and principles of the ASEAN Charter relating to the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, ASEAN shall
establish an ASEAN human rights body. 2. This ASEAN human rights body shall
operate in accordance with the terms of reference to be determined by the ASEAN
Foreign Ministers Meeting.”
14
The Charter caused various controversies, as the principles of non-
interference and human rights mentioned-above contradict each other. Although we can
see that they are various clauses which considered to adhere the protection of human
rights in the region, the principles regarding the non-intervention rule out the
possibilities to address these issues in an effective or timely manner. The Charter does
not authorize ASEAN (as the regional organization) to have the power to impose
sanctions or punish countries that violates the clauses set out and, would therefore, be
limited in effectiveness. As Article 14 provided that ASEAN must have a human rights
body, the ASEAN’s newer members including Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and
Vietnam were reluctant and protested against the formation of a functional ASEAN
Human Rights body which might lead to accusations of human rights abuse within their
borders. Moreover, these states view that these constructions might lead to attempts by
outsiders to pursue their own interests in various possible aspects within their borders.
Non-interference, in this regard, is given weight for its ability to preserve the
domination and manipulation of weaker members by more powerful members.
Notwithstanding, the terms were agreed upon leading to the establishment of ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) on the ASEAN Summit 23
October 2009 (Aichr.org, 2015).
4.1.3 The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights
(AICHR)
In reference to the ASEAN Charter, the AICHR turned out to only
“promote and protect human rights” as clearly stated in its Article 1, Purposes. The
Terms of Reference of the AICHR states in the Principle clauses as follows: “The
AICHR shall be guided by the following principles: 2.1 Respect for principles of
ASEAN as embodied in Article 2 of the ASEAN Charter, in particular: a) respect for
the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all
ASEAN Member States; b) non-interference in the internal affairs of ASEAN Member
States; c) respect for the right of every Member State to lead its national existence free
from external interference, subversion and coercion; 5 ASEAN Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights; d) adherence to the rule of law, good governance, the
principles of democracy and constitutional government; e) respect for fundamental
15
freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social
justice.”
The Principles of AICHR, again, return to the norms of non-interference
among the ASEAN members laid in the ASEAN Charter rendering the body to have
absolutely no enforcement power (NewsDesk, 2013). The definition of promotion and
protection, hereby only include raising awareness, advising, sharing information, and
advocating to the member states. It cannot pass judgments regarding the violation of
human rights in the region or of the member states. There is no mention of any enforcing
power or even the ability to address country-specific human violations.
4.2 Case Study of the Rohingyas in Myanmar
The crisis of the Rohingyas and its prolonged tragedy is one of the examples
demonstrating the results of ASEAN’s practices and the ineffectiveness of its human
rights’ bodies. To truly understand the cause of the issue, we would have to trace back
to the roots of the Rohingyas and understand the history which leads to the crisis as we
know today. The “Rohingya” is a generic term which is an Islamic tribe that has been
mentioned to live in the northern Rakhine state in western Burma - officially known as
Republic of the Union of Myanmar, commonly shortened to Myanmar (Szczepanski,
2015) involving in a long history of isolation from the rest of the country until today.
Their origins are variously debated as mixed Muslims including the Arab traders
settling into the area in the 7-8th century, to the Moors, Turks, Persians, Muguls, and
Pathans. In Myanmar, a majority Buddhist nation, the Rohingyas are more likely to say
they are “Muslim” than to identify themselves with a particular ethnicity. Their
population expanded with the Muslims from India and Bangladesh migrants who
migrated to the area during the British Rule in the sub-continent from 1858 to
1947(Refugees, 2015).
In Truth & Rights: Statelessness, Human Rights, and the Rohingya, Patrick
Balazo has done a thorough research in the background of the Rohingyas which will be
be used as reference in this research. The origin of Rohingya population has had a
deeproot within the history of Myanmar long before any of the current issues have
emerged. One of the earliest records of Rohingya may have been found in Arakan or
16
what is now known as Rakhine state of Myanmar. In 1401, the then king of Arakan,
Narmeikhla, defeated in an attack against the neighboring Burma and sought asylum
within the Muslim Bengali ruler Jalaluddn Shah. By 1430, the Muslim Bengali ruler
returned Narmeikhla to Arakan as its ruler, reaffirming its Islamic influence over the
region. Arakan had then retained its independence as an Islamic kingdom for over a
few centuries until 1784 where the king of Burma, Bodawpaya defeated and subjugated
Arakan. Through the incorporation of the defeated state, its Muslims took flight to
Bengal – Bangladesh – 200,000 Muslims left the state. By just over a decade, in 1789,
two-thirds of Arakan’s Muslims had abandoned their homeland.
It should be noted that the term “Rohingya” may have originated from the
term “Rooinga” meaning “natives of Arakan”, this term was used among the
Mohammedans, those who have long settled in Arakan, to call themselves. In 1824,
after the British invasion of Burma and in 1826, with the Treat of Yandobo, Arakan
was made into a British Territory. The state of Arakan became a more stable and
hospitable place for the Rohingyas prompting many who have fled to Bengal to migrant
back to their home. However, under the British’s government, Bengali farmers were
encouraged to settle in Arakan to increase its agricultural productivity for export. The
movement of Bengali farmers undermined the impact and the historical presence of the
Ronhingyas in the Arakan region. Followed by the Second and Third Anglo-Burmese
wars, Burma was to become a province of India, a large Indian population poured into
the region furthering the confusion and slowly dissolving the Rohingyas of their legacy
and history. They later became labeled as “Indian Muslims” through new colonial rules.
Although, there had always been tension between the Buddhist and Muslim
communities within Burma, it became more pronounced in 1930 and 1938 with the
“Anti-Indian riots”. Many Burmese had felt they could not afford the same social and
economic opportunities as their Indian counterparts. With the Rohingyas being legally
labeled as “Indian Muslims”, they shared the same treatment as the “Indian Muslims”
population, as their persecution began to escalate. On 4 January 1948, Burma succeeded
in getting back its independence and sovereignty as a State from the British, Anti-
Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) was left in charge of the State. Under the
leadership of Prime Minister U Nu and the AFPFL, the Rohingyas were recognized as
citizens of Burma. However, the coup d’état staged by General Ne Win in 1962 forever
17
changed the fate of the people of Rohingyas. Ne Win announced that the Rohingyas are
“Indian Bengalis” who migrated to Burma after the first Anglo-Burmese war. This
declaration has spurred a lot of legal acts against the Rohingyas: movement restriction,
outlawing Rohingya organizations and discontinuing all their language programs. With
the most infamous passing of the bill, the Emergency Immigration Act, it effectively
and underhandedly stripped the Rohingyas of their Burmese nationality by replacing
their national registration certificates with foreign registration cards (Balazo, 2015).
Since then, the tribe has been an integral part of Burma tripling in
population from 58,000 in 1871 to 178,000 in 1911.However, by year 1977-1978, the
Rohingyas was crucially violated of their human rights under the regime of military
junta, driving over 200,000 Rohingyas to Bangladesh, 12,000 of whom died due to
starvation and many were deported back to the northern area of Rakhine state. The
spark of the most recent cruelty started by 1982 with the Burmese government, under
the regime of military junta, excluded Rohingyas from retaining their Burmese
citizenship. They were rendered stateless by the Burma Citizenship Law of 1982 which
effectively denied the Rohingyas recognition of their status as an ethnic group
(Refugees, 2015).
The military junta considered these people as recent migrants from
Bangladesh. Chapter II of the Burma Citizenship Law 1982 clearly excluded the
Rohingyas from the ethnic group as follow: “3. Nationals such as the Kachin, Kayah,
Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine or Shan and ethnic groups as have settled in any
of the territories included within the State as their permanent home from a period
anterior to 1185 B.E., 1823 A.D. are Burma citizens.4. The Council of State may decide
whether any ethnic group is national or not.”
Immigrants that settled in Myanmar before its independence in 1948 are all
considered as legal immigrants. Other immigrants must prove their ancestors origin
before 1948 or else they are considered as illegal immigrant. There are no means for
the Rohingyas to prove their identity or national status under the 1982 Citizenship law
which demands evidence, documentations and proof of their living in Burma before
1823. Their available nationality papers, family list, and IDs have been burnt into ashes
or seized away by the government officials throughout the course of their existence in
Myanmar. In addition to that, the Rohingya are not recognized to have civil rights,
18
official recognition, or justice. The government of Myanmar has denied providing any
form of recognition, moreover, stripped off the rights to acquire citizenship to the
approximately one million population of the Rohingya residing in the Rakhine state
near the Myanmar-Bangladesh border.
Moreover, the Burma Citizenship Law 1982 was declared under the reign
of the dictator General Ne Win who was against all international treaties and the
Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR). This law violates the Burma Union
Citizenship Act 1948 when Burma won independence which states: “(2) Any person
descended from ancestors who for two generations at least have all made any of the
territories included within the Union their permanent home and whose parents and
himself were born in any of such territories shall be deemed to be a citizen of the Union
(Burmalibrary.org, 2015).”
From this point onwards, the group has been the target of unjust behaviors
violating every means of Human Rights: on-going inhuman treatment, mental and
physical torture, intimidation, harassment, life threatening, forcing to confess as
Bengali race, massive home eviction by arson and ravaging in private properties. As a
result of not having the nationality to be protected by the domestic law, the Rohingyas
are confronted with other forms of persecution, discrimination and exploitation. These
includes (but are not limited to) forced labor, extortion, restriction on freedom of
movement, the absence of residence rights, inequitable marriage regulations and land
confiscation. The Rohingyas also have limited access to secondary and tertiary
education as well as other public services. As the Rohingyas does not have the capacity
to wage war with the center and does not have links with any respective communities
unlike Shan, Chin, Kachin and Mon, their lack of networks and channels to help deal
with the issues in their community has result as being neglected from the international
community.
The military junta maintains a clearly articulated stance on the Rohingyas.
In a press release issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar on 26 February
1992, the government declared: “In actual fact, although there are [135] national races
living in Myanmar today and the so-called Rohingya people is not one of them.
Historically, there has never been a ‘Rohingya’ race in Myanmar” (Kyaw, 2008). As a
result of such deprivations, large numbers of Rohingya have left Myanmar and have
19
been forced to migrate to Bangladesh, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and
Malaysia. While there is a general lack of precision with respect to the number of people
involved, there are estimated to be up to 400,000 Rohingyas in Bangladesh, 200,000 in
Pakistan, 20,000 in Thailand and 15,000 in Malaysia. United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) estimates some 1,477,500 Rohingyas (including
other possible IDPs) remain in northern Rakhine state and other parts of Myanmar
(Refugee, 2015).
Myanmar recently held their national census through 30 March to 10 April
2014, first time in 31 years (The Guardian, 2014). However, controversies occurred
when the officials did not count the population of the Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine
state. The household who identified themselves as “Rohingya” or “Muslim” were
ignored and not counted in the census. Official reported that doing so might be
perceived as a step toward granting them citizenship (Tonkin, 2015).
The conflict that decided the Rohingyas’ fate is a deep-rooted turmoil that
has resulted in years of ill will that eventually drove a wedge into the long-standing
community of the Rakhine state. The said conflict is the difference in faith, due to
mistrust, misunderstanding and discrimination. There had always been some kind of
segregation within the state between the Muslims and the Buddhists. The Muslims, as
a minority, has largely been the target for persecution solely on ground of accusations
of conspiring to overtake the entire area of Rakhine as their own. The accumulation of
these hatred and discrimination for decades among the Buddhist of Myanmar in
Rakhine State towards the Muslim minority of Rohingya, sparked into a raging violence
in 2012. This event was the trigger that brought out the name of Rohingya to be heard
and recognized (even by few today) by the international community. The incident took
place on May 28, 2012 when three Muslims raped and murdered a Buddhist woman in
the state of Rakhine. On June 3, 2012, few days following the incident, a group of
Buddhists stopped a bus, dragged approximately ten Muslims passengers to the street
and beat them to death(OpenDemocracy, 2015).The event has put the entire community
of Burmese Buddhists on edge and drove them to take an extreme measure on the entire
community of innocent Rohingyas Muslims. One can only recognize the violence
against the Muslims in the Rakhine state as ethnic cleansing and genocide in Myanmar
(United to End Genocide, 2015). The event was the tipping point which erupted as the
20
ethnic riots across the Rakhine state. The Buddhist launched coordinated attacks against
the Muslims villages and neighborhood in the state. Moreover, local governmental
authorities aided the Rakhine extremists in destruction of the Rohingya villages playing
a leading role in targeting Rohingya through mass arrests and arbitrary violence. Houses
were burnt down and the Muslims caught by the extremists were shot, speared, hacked,
and in some cases lynched. On 10 June 2012, President Thein Sein declared a state of
emergency in the Rakhine State after the deadly clashes between Buddhist and the
Rohingya. The whole villages have been totally destroyed. As of 14 June 2012, over
2,500 houses were burnt to the ground. According to Tun Khin, the President of the
Burmese Rohingya Organization UK (BROUK), as of 28 June 2012, 650 Rohingyas
have been killed, 1,200 are missing, and up to 140,000 people have been
displaced(Hindstrom, 2012).
On 12 July 2012, President Thein Sein tells the UN High Commissioner for
the Refugees that the government will take responsibility for its own ethnic
nationalities, but it is “not at all possible to recognize the illegal border-crossing
Rohingyas who are not our ethnicity”. Thein Sein alleged that the “Bengalis were
brought into Burma to work as farmhands by the English colonialists before the
[country’s] independence in 1948”. The president then asserted that in accordance with
Burmese Law, “only a third generation [immigrant] descended from those who came
into Burma before 1948 are recognized as a citizen.” He said that the Rohinyas as pose
a threat to national security and that they should be resettled in any third country that is
willing to take them. He further continued, "The solution to this problem is that they
can be settled in refugee camps managed by UNHCR, and UNHCR provides for them.
If there are countries that would accept them, they could be sent there. This is what we
are thinking is the solution to the issue (DVB Multimedia Group, 2012)”. This proposal
was immediately rejected by the agency. U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees,
Antonio Guterres, rejected the proposal, telling reporters that resettling or taking care
of the Rohingyas in camps is not the refugee agency's job. The U.N. says Rohingyas in
Myanmar are displaced within their own country and insists they be treated as citizens.
The total number of Muslims killed in Myanmar since June 3, is estimated to be about
52,000 but the exact numbers of Muslims killed is still unknown because the
government has not allowed independent investigations, no UN or Human Rights
21
activists or media has been given access in the affected areas since the violence began
(Bangladeshcorruption, 2012).
The outbreak of violence and riots in 2012 between the Muslim minorities
Rohingyas, the Buddhists, and other population of Rakhine state have led to the
casualties of approximately 52,000 Rohingyas killed, 160,000 displaced, and all their
previous residence and villages burnt down. It did surely catch the attention of the
international communities and organizations criticizing Myanmar of its cruelty and
responded for the country to take action. Many organizations has led in their hand to
help with providing food and shelter to the displaced and stateless people and many has
provoked various important responses to the violence since June 2012. The twelve (12)
Rohingya Organizations that were established in the past decade include as follows:
Rohingya Concern International (RCI), Burmese Rohingya American Friendship
Association (BRAFA), World Rohingya Congress (WRC), Rohingya Arakanese
Refugee Committee (RARC), Arakan Rohingya Organization-Japan, Burmese
Rohingya Association in Queensland-Australia, Rohingya Muslim Organization
(RMO), Rohingya Youth Development Forum (RYDF), Arakan Rohingya Ulama
Council (ARUC), Ethnic Rohingya Committee of Arakan (ERCA), Human Rights
Association for Rohingyas (HURAR), and Myanmar Muslim Council (MMC), Saudi
Arabia. Their aims are to voice the injustice for the victims of Rohingya’s regarding
their legislation of laws pertaining to citizenship denial, statelessness, human rights,
slow burning genocide, racial discrimination, human trafficking and ethnic cleansing
activities in Myanmar.
As the Rohingyas become striped of their nationality and citizenship, their
very existence is undermined by the State in which they used to belong. It should be
noted that statelessness can be grave, not only are they not recognized, the fact that they
are unrecognizable or refused to be recognized under law means they are easy targets
for violence and exploitation. Having been ousted by its own native land and shunned
by its former government, the Rohingyas stand to face more hardships as their
countrymen have rejected them on the basis of their culture and identity, left with no
rights and defenseless, fueled by the tension of the ethnic and religion differences, they
are at risk of genocide, a number of experts fear. With the unwelcoming sentiment from
their former State, the Rohingyas have but 2 choices: to stay and be persecuted or flee
22
and risk losing their lives at sea. In the recent events, there have been multiple reports
of Rohingyas dying at sea, gathered in camps and/or falling prey to human trafficking.
The conditions of life have progressively worsened since the eventful day of mass
exodus. It has been estimated that around 100,000 Rohingyas have fled Myanmar, some
have attempted to flee to Thailand and Malaysia. Thailand has had a history of rejecting
Rohingyas in 2009, 2011 and 2013 whereas Malaysia has mostly permitted Rohingyas
into its territory. Although successful in fleeing, many Rohingyas have fallen victims
to human traffickers, being forced to work in plantations on Thai and Malaysian soils.
In 2015, waves of the Rohingyas are been drifted out into the sea with the
assistance of human traffickers to Malaysia and Indonesia, and Thailand. Their trips are
made in boats clustered with people. The people on the boats lack food, drinking water,
and proper excretory means. Therefore, the population on these boats is starving, and
is critically fermented with infection and diseases (Aljazeera.com, 2015). Currently,
these three countries are critically facing challenges internationally and domestically
on how to remedy this stateless population who are floating in their waters. Many deaths
have also been reported with hundreds of bodies found around the border of Thailand
in jungle camps which has gained the attention of international media. The moral
dilemma also leaks to the states that provide refuge for these people, what is appropriate
and how many people can they handle without compromising their own national
responsibilities to their own citizens and how long to keep them. Bangladesh has made
its stance clear with its rejection but Thailand has taken some of the responsibility for
the people of Rohingyas, the Thai government has been lending support and providing
shelters for those who narrowly escaped their cruel fate. However, as a safe haven for
the tribe, the country has had to deal with the cost of such heavy burden, to take care of
thousands of people who do not belong in the territory. Human-trafficking has emerged
as some of these people are kidnapped and sold for extremely cheap labor among other
things.
It is true that any state can only care for their “friends” for so long. This
issue as outlined is not of Myanmar’s neighbors, but is of Myanmar to resolve. The
statelessness has put Rohingyas in a vulnerable position, with no legal status recognized
anywhere, they are barred from even the most basic human rights and prone to such
exploitations mentioned above.
23
4.3 Case Study Analysis
4.3.1 Universal vs. ASEAN’s perception of Human Rights
Human rights is one of the most theoretical topic in modern history which
still cannot be fully conceptualize after almost a century of its introduction. It is very
difficult to specifically classify if the term “human rights” is truly a political or
individual matter. Scholars in different fields of studies viewing human rights from
different angles still struggle to mutually agree on the magnitude of this matter. This is
because this topic revolves around so many possible factors imaginable ranging from
socially (but not limited to) different history, traditions, cultures, religions, and believes
around the world, to the political factors such as ideologies, practices, sovereignty, and
national interests. Although we have been taught that human rights are the inalienable
rights that every single human-being is entitled to just for being born human in
accordance to the Preamble of UDHR, the reality (even in modern times) has proved
very differently. There are various lenses that scholars use to argue regarding human
rights. “In the South, rights are seen as primarily collective rather than individual,
economical rather than civil, associated with equality rather than with liberty. In the
North, they can reflect commitments to solidarity and social justice as well as to
political freedom (Douzinas and Gearty, n.d.).” In this sense, as members of ASEAN
are mostly developing countries, human rights in the region are perceived as more
collective rather than individual. The perception of ASEAN’s human right is not to the
universal standard of truly recognizing human rights as an individual matter, and the
Charter too, has confirmed of this perception.
4.3.2 Right to Nationality of the Rohingyas
This research focuses specifically on “nationality rights” which is the legal
bond between the person and the state. A person who does not have a nationality,
therefore, becomes stateless meaning that he does not have the legal bond of nationality
with any state in the world. As a result, a stateless person will not be able to enjoy their
other rights in relation to having a nationality under the domestic law such as the right
to be protected by the law, right to own property, right to vote, right to work and right
to education. Without nationality, the person shall become a foreigner in his own land,
24
and even worse, also foreigner to the rest of the world. Accordingly, not only does the
statelessness of the Rohingyas affects domestically, it affects the whole region as the
stateless people are being displaced and seek refuge in neighboring countries such as
Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia (and even outreaching to the Middle East), resulting
as other border issues such as human trafficking, rape, drug trafficking and terrorism in
the region.
To understand the root of the problem, we must know that Rohingyas’
status of statelessness is their depravation from nationality in the legal-political sense.
According to the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Article
1 states the definition of the term “Stateless person” means a person who is not
considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law. A person who is
stateless lacks this membership and will be seen and treated as a foreigner by every
country in the world. This phenomenon has also been described as “de jure
statelessness”. In contrast, to have a nationality refers to the legal bond between a
person and a state. This bond can best be seen as a form of official membership which
confers upon the national certain rights (like the right to live in the country or participate
in elections) as well as duties (Nationalityforall.org, 2015). To determine whether a
person is considered as a national by a state under the operation of its law requires a
careful analysis of how a state applies its nationality laws in practice.
For a person to be stateless it is not relevant where he or she is located
(Institutesi.org, 2015). Statelessness occurs in both migration and non-migration
contexts. A stateless person may never have crossed an international border, having
lived in the same country for his or her entire life. As in the case of the Rohingyas, they
and their ancestors have lived in the region for centuries tracing back to their origins as
mentioned earlier. The Burma Citizenship Law of 1982 was the reason to legally render
the Rohingyas as stateless. The Law provided for three categories of citizenship: (1)
full citizens, (2) associate citizens, and (3) naturalized citizens. According to this list,
the Rohingyas fall under session 2 (e), which defines a Rohingya as a non-national or
a foreign resident, a person who is not a citizen or an associate citizen or a naturalized
citizen. Rohingya people could try to apply for naturalized citizenship but they must
present evidence, however, they possess no ancestral, or registration identification.
Moreover, their language are not recognized as an official language, therefore, they
25
cannot prove their nationality to the authority. It can clearly be seen that this law is a
scheme of the military junta to turn the Rakhine State into a Buddhist region by
reducing the Muslims into a stateless minority. Having striped off their nationalities,
the Rohingyas are exposed to a magnitude of human right abuses that stem from being
statelessness such as the right for education, the right for health services, the right for
marriage, and family rights. Persecution can be easily kept secret, the population statics
can be manipulated, promoting racism and discrimination, therefore, resulting as state-
sponsored ethnic cleansing and genocide.
These results directly conflict with the Article 1(1) Purposes and Principles of
the ASEAN Charter that is “to maintain and enhance peace, security and stability and
further strengthen peace- oriented values in the region.” The statelessness of the
Rohingyas is the threat to the not only the region’s but even outside the region’s with
peace security and stability issues. With the people of Rohingyas idle, angry, and
desperate for freedom, the population can easily become targets for people smuggling,
human trafficking, and worse, breeding ground for terrorism, and other forms of
violence. The people have nothing to do, no education, no job, no food. The anger can
be molded and easily manipulated by transnational criminals or Muslim based terrorist.
As the people are being killed and dehumanized on a daily basis, their sacrifice in the
name of religion and freedom is definitely more meaningful resulting as threat to peace
and stability of the whole ASEAN region. This issue can sooner than later lead to very
critical and harmful consequences in the fabric of ASEAN’s community. It is time to
seriously acknowledge that the statelessness in a state does not only effect that
particular state, however, it effects its neighbors and the whole region.
4.3.3 Interpretation of Legal Instruments
Interpreting the legal instruments is important in understanding how a
certain law is written and why it was written as such. This applies not only to domestic
laws such as criminal or civil laws, but to any binding agreements that relevant
authorities have mutually agreed upon. Although international law has been criticized
by its effectiveness of enforcement and punishment for non-compliance, it still acts as
a framework on how the international communities should behave. Moreover, it also
regulates and restricts certain actions that would otherwise create chaos and disturbance
26
in the anarchic international community which does not have an absolute authority to
govern every state in the world. Therefore, any piece of bilateral or multilateral
agreements that states engage in and agreed to follow is given weight to its ability to
moderate the behaviors of these states who are concerned for their national integrity,
national interests, and images. ASEAN, as a regional organization, has determine its
legal character and put in writing by creating its own constitution. The ASEAN Charter,
as the constitution, is the legal instrument in which all the ten member states have to
follow in order to preserve its stance (and interests) in the organization. When non-
compliance occurs, the ASEAN Charter shall be referred to in order to resolve the issue.
However, after understanding the Charter as discussed earlier in this
research, it is come to known that it is has no enforceable clauses in the material. Any
serious breach of conditions will only be discussed in the ASEAN Summit until by
consensus after all members agree to address it in the meeting’s agenda. The question
hence arises, “what if certain clauses in the Charter is amended”. There is no doubt this
notion may come across as the most direct solution into resolving this problem.
However, considering the norms of the ASEAN Way, this can be seen as an unrealistic
approach. Therefore, a probable approach would be on how ASEAN can address their
human rights violators without offending the country’s sovereignty.
ASEAN can use the successful example of the European Union (EU) of
their establishment of human rights mechanism in the region to lay the foundation of
ASEAN. This is to make sure that while the region is gaining benefits from economic
integration, the basic human needs of the people and the minorities are not being
sacrificed in the process. It is a responsibility of the regional organization to take care
of its population when the integration takes place to ensure that the people benefit the
most out of the regionalization of ASEAN. Common dialogue must be strengthen in
the region to ensure that the standards of immigration are met. These include, but are
not limited to, migrant workers, human trafficking issues, human smuggling issues, and
genocide issues. ASEAN must be able to build a capacity which can monitor and
evaluate these movements within the region and report to their human rights bodies. It
is true that ASEAN’s credibility and success of its members lie in their economic
development in the past decades which was able to catch up with their competitors,
however, this success came about ignoring the ethnic minorities and human rights
27
abuses issues that are still current and happening within these states. Critics have
pointed out that a huge part of this success lies in the nature of ASEAN’s strict practice
of non-interference among member states. This gave the lesser developed members the
opportunity to catch up into the race with their own will and commitment without the
interference of outsiders who might gain benefits from exploitation of resources from
these countries. Consultation and consensus ensured that the level of understanding and
trust within ASEAN is well balanced and no new and abrupt issues will be dealt with
until full acknowledgment from all members. This is the reason why ASEAN held on
to the practice of non-interference very firmly and consider that overall economic
success of the region is the bigger goal that the organization pursue for. In this process,
they must be able to look aside the human rights abuses and internal affairs of their
members to ensure that cooperation and stability is well maintained within the region
at all times.
Correspondingly, Dr Sriprapha Petcharamesree has pointed out in her
lecture and writing that, “ASEAN has long emphasized that the promotion and
protection of human rights by the international community must recognize national
sovereignty, national borders and non-interference in another state’s affair. ASEAN
views human rights as an internal affair (Petcharamesree, 2009).”This can be easily
identified by the name of the ASEAN’s human rights body itself (ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights). The body used the word
“Intergovernmental” to stress out that the actors that will be associated with this matter
is between only the member states of ASEAN. By including the word
“intergovernmental” and not using only the word “commission”, ASEAN has already
confirmed that this is not an independent body and no other actors can address in
regards of human rights matters within other state’s border independently. Therefore,
the AICHR is headed towards the other direction of promoting the human rights and
developing the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration to only establish a regional human
rights framework that is in accordance to the international standards and obligations.
There will be no accusations or finger pointing to the members that violate the human
rights within their territory. In ASEAN’s Socio-Cultural Community pillar, it has
established a more independent body which focuses on the human dimensions which is
the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion & Protection of the Rights of Women &
28
Children (Asean.org, 2015). As mentioned earlier, the body outlines various areas of
concerns in the region and has agreed upon different members to be the leader in solving
specific issues. Although we can argue that this matter also concerns the Rohingyas’
individual’s well-being, livelihood, and welfare and should be viewed from the ASEAN
Socio-Cultural Community pillar, there is no doubt that the human rights regarding the
rights to a nationality is more a legal-political matter as it directly includes other rights
that the person is bond to receive from his/her state. The argument concludes that
ASEAN must deal with nationality issue from political aspects from its Political –
Security Community pillar, and therefore, return to the structure that was laid upon
earlier in this research of ASEAN Charter and AICHR.
The next challenge is that can AICHR develop into something more
concrete and effective. If so, it would have become a mechanism that is agreed by all
members to be able to address issues which are on-going in states affair. Not only that,
it would have to change its function from only promotion to have the authority to
monitor, evaluate, investigate, and enforce policies within the region. Lastly, it must be
able to close the gap and change the perceptions of human rights in ASEAN to be that
of the universally recognized as mentioned earlier in this research.
4.4 Examination of ASEAN’s Reality and Expectations
Some of ASEAN’s noticeable actions towards the crisis of the Rohingyas
were on 30th October 2012 when ASEAN’s Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan offered
open talks between ASEAN, the United Nations, and Myanmar’s government regarding
the violence in the country. He stated that the violence will threaten the stability of the
region jeopardizing the economic and security of South-East Asia
(Blogs.voanews.com, 2015).Moreover, he offered help on behalf of ASEAN for
humanitarian engagement. However, this offer was rejected immediately by the
Burmese government. Following that, ASEAN raised the issue of the Rohingya crisis
on three ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Caucus on 28 November 2012, 2 April 2013, and
22 May 2013 expressing its support for a resolution drafted by Organization of Islamic
Cooperation members on anti-Muslim violence and human rights issues in Myanmar to
be brought before the UN Human Rights Council (Burmapartnership.org, 2015).
29
The recent event that the term Rohingya was mentioned was in the 25th
ASEAN Summit (held in Naypyidaw, 11-13 November 2014) by the UN Secretary-
General Ban Ki-Moon who called for better treatment of the stateless Muslim minority
in Myanmar(The Irrawaddy, 2014). The Burmese government officials reacted
furiously and did not approve of the statement. Ban Ki-Moon later stressed that, “It is
time to alleviate the fears of the two communities: by that I mean both the Rakhine
community and what you call the Rohingyas or Bengalis, and to address their
grievances and uphold their human rights. Failure to do so, as we have seen in other
parts of the world, can magnify inter-communal tensions and sow the seeds for future
instability (Bookbinder, 2014).” As mentioned earlier, the UN Secretary-General too,
also emphasized that human rights issue in the region is not something to be taken
lightly as it will sow the seeds and grow into a very immense security problem in the
region in the foreseeable future. By then, ASEAN (as a regional organization), will be
marked with a new scar and lose its credibility in the international stage. To be noted
that even in this ASEAN Summit, all the other leaders of the ASEAN members did not
raise or supported this issue with the UN Secretary-General. The Burmese officials cut
off the statement instantly and were critical over the use of the term Rohingya. To be
specific, the ASEAN members have agreed upon keeping the Rohingyas issue off the
ASEAN Summit’s agenda (Uscampaignforburma.org, 2015).
There is no surprise that the 26th ASEAN Summit which was held in Kuala
Lumpar, Malaysia on 26-28 April 2015 ended with no discussion in regards to the on-
going events of the Rohingyas. Even though Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand are now
facing serious issues involving thousands of Rohingyas stranded off their shores, which
led to the recent outbreak of people smuggling and corruption within their countries,
there is still no sign of the regional organization reacting cooperatively to address the
issue (Foster, 2015). Myanmar officials again refused to address (or even use the word)
“Rohingya” and has taken no responsibility to assist the affected neighbors, let alone
anything with the Rohingyas. As the agenda has not been raised in these two previous
ASEAN Summits, this issue has no hope to make its stance in the next Summit. This
particular event has illustrated the clearest picture of how ASEAN is reluctant to finger
point any of its member’s country that has violated human rights in its territory.
30
We can predict how far behind ASEAN is its concerns of human rights
issues in its region and even farther behind in its readiness to seriously and formally
address a human rights violation issue even in the stage that was meant to be held to
address these types of issues. UNHCR Executive Committee, Conclusion on
Identification, Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness and Protection of Stateless
Persons, No. 106, 6 October 2006, has laid the foundation of responding to statelessness
in four aspects including identification, prevention, reduction and protection. By
achieving one of the pillars, the other pillars will be reinforced and thus securing the
proposed solution’s effectiveness. It is stated that by “Identification”, it can be achieved
through a tailored population survey whereas “Reduction” is assisting stateless persons
to access naturalization procedures. While “Protection” can come through sheer fact
that stateless persons have proper identification – proof of ties to their state.
“Prevention” is to avoid new cases of statelessness.
It should be noted that these pillars are achievable via the cooperation of
every state involved – especially those with stateless persons. Most countries are to
uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15, which states “everyone
has the right to a nationality”. The protocol is further supplemented by the 1961.
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness through various norms formulated to
tackle this issue, international law now is involved in the process in which states
regulate access to their respective nationality. As “Protection” is at the very core of
human rights issue, according to international law, nationality is no longer the primary
basis for the enjoyment of rights, obliging states to respect and protect human rights of
all persons under their jurisdiction, including non-nationals. As such, states bound
under international law are legally obligated to adhere to these pillars where appropriate
to reduce, prevent and resolve the issue of statelessness.
However still, the reality has shown that ASEAN is not able to utilize this
solution and is stuck on the first aspect of Identification. Without the ability of the
organization to even point out (Identify) the issue in its annual meeting; prevention,
reduction, and protection are all very distant topics. It is only a matter of time when this
seed will mold into a severe security issue that will be beyond the control of the region
that ASEAN will open up to address the matter collectively.
31
We can notably agree that the establishment of the AICHR is the initiative
and right direction that ASEAN took in regards to human rights violations, however,
given the fact that right now it’s only purpose is only for promotion, the organization
must look into developing a particular mechanism on this milestone that can be able to
create an impact to addressing human rights violators in the region. As mentioned above
in compliance with the ASEAN Charter Article 1, 2, and 14, the members must address
human rights issues affectively in order to develop as a democratic region as a whole
in order to gain respect from the rest of the world. If ASEAN will hold its practice of
non-interference firm, the solution should then encompass a mean that can be respected
by all without the practice of interference.
32
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Recommendations
The incident of the ASEAN Summit in regards of the Rohingyas depicts
the reality that of how ASEAN members view human rights issues in its member
countries despite the knowledge of the losses and damages that the region has already
suffered. Therefore, developing a human rights mechanism is too impractical. A more
realistic possibility might lie on how the ASEAN members can agree collectively to
“address” a human rights issue first. Thus, agreeing on a norm. By using the framework
of Neoliberalism, the members can look into agreeing upon a norm that can address the
human rights issues more formally and constructively. This norm can then later become
a mechanism and hopefully, evolve into something more concrete (such as a Human
Rights Court). With the knowledge that ASEAN is constructed as a regional
organization similar to the European Union and will become a regional community in
the near future, ASEAN can further look into the successful example the European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as guidance. Although the notion of having a Human
Rights Court in ASEAN (let alone a mechanism) is too far reached, the concept of
having a mutually agreed norm of practice within ASEAN members is reasonably
possible.
Based on the analytical framework provided, we can at least be optimistic
for the possibilities of what the future holds. On 29th May 2015, Thailand hosted the
first formal summit on migrant crisis calling representatives from 17 nations to talk
about the on-going crisis of the Rohingyas (CNN, 2015). Although senior officials were
not present at the summit and the Myanmar’s official denied responsibility for the roots
of the crisis, this summit is the milestone that ASEAN is chasing for. Even though the
summit ended with the participants not able to agree on any binding agreements at the
time, let alone call for a common norm to address the issue, the hype of the event and
the participants stimulated and called for summits and meetings as such to take place
again. Whether in regards of the criminality of people smuggling and/or human
trafficking which are the results of this crisis, or whether to find a dialogue to address
33
this issue, the spur of these meetings will passively create a sense of commitment of
participation among the members.
Institutionalization is conceptualized for its ability of bounding, guiding,
and regularizing (Emmers, 2012). The participants are encouraged to commit to the
defined rules and frameworks (in a formal and organization sense) and at the same time
partake in habituation, regularization, and normalization (in a sociological sense).
When these actions take place regularly, a norm is born which eventually leads to a
formal agreement. This can later be applied into the human rights body, AICHR, giving
it the ability to do more than just promotion of human rights. The first advantage is that
it will do aside the concerns for intervention and threats of national sovereignty. This
modification to AICHR shall be able to address the issue, and leads to agreements that
may resolve issues regarding human rights in the region in a legal and binding manner.
5.2 Conclusion
In answering the questions which this research has set forth, it can be
concluded that the human rights violation in regards of the Rohingyas is categorized as
a political issue; therefore, the means to resolve this issue cannot be done by the
independent bodies of ASEAN. Consistently, the reason why ASEAN is not addressing
the crisis of the Rohingyas although the protection of human rights is the fundamental
clause of the ASEAN Charter is because of ASEAN’s firm commitment of non-
interference. Consultation and consensus priorities mutuality among the members.
Mutuality and mutual respect is what ASEAN aspire to achieve, therefore, all its
instruments and legal bodies are written in such a manner that only promotes
relationship building and relationship-maintaining among the members.
After examining the legal and human rights bodies of ASEAN, it is
demonstrated there are no binding clauses to impose on members who have violated
human rights within their territories. In addition, the human rights bodies of ASEAN is
not an independent body, which means it cannot address human rights issues or operate
on its own accord to resolve any issue in the region. From the legal point of view, the
probable answer to this question is to develop the human rights body to become an
independent entity which has the authority to address the human rights abuse issue in
34
the region by its own framework. To do so, the members would have to come to an
agreement to amend the clauses set forth in the constitution and in AICHR. Moreover,
the term “intergovernmental” in AICHR would have to be put away into something
which does not specify that only the governments can address human rights issues in
the region. This process will definitely take time, however, every legal agreement that
the ASEAN members were able to endorse and finalize came from mutual commitment
into addressing the issue and the encouragement to sit together to discuss the significant
of such issues effecting the reputation, peace, and stability of the region.
The agreement of ASEAN member on finding a common norm to address
the issues of human rights is a vision that will definitely not happen shortly, yet it is
within its grasp. The ten states are diverse in their histories, background, forms of
government and stance in human rights. This is the core limitation of this proposal that
there is no common critical motivation in forming such norms within the organization
that should have the ability to formally address or pin out country specific human rights
violation. The crisis of the Rohingyas alone is not sufficient enough for such
commitment (yet). ASEAN will continue in its path of upholding their general principle
of non-intervention and non-intervene among each other.
The consequences of statelessness are that it will significantly meddle with
the social fabric of the communities in the region. It will also strain the state relations
if the issues overflow starting with one state to the next, not only within ASEAN
members but eventually to outside the region. It is the choice of ASEAN to either wait
until such humanitarian crisis erupts into a physical threat to the stability, economy and
security of the region or it can learn from its previous mistakes and agree to make a
difference. Identity and reputation matter significantly in the global context. The role
of an international institution can benefit the region tremendously to form an identity
of a region that concerns about human rights issues seriously. In the process of dealing
with humanitarian issues, the region will gain reputation for its commitment that it has
laid ahead in the foundation of the Charter. We have learnt that human rights issues are
not only of the states, but an international responsibility beyond borders, and it can only
be solved collectively through cooperation and trust.
35
REFERENCES
Books and Book Articles
Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (2001). The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chuathai, S. (2011). Philosophy of Law. Bangkok: Winyuchon Publication House.
Constantine, G., & Larkin, E. (2012). Exiled to nowhere. Bangkok: Nowhere People.
Douzinas, C. & Gearty, C. (2014). The Meanings of Rights: The Philosophy and
Social Theory of Human Rights. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Emmers, R. (2012). ASEAN and the institutionalization of East Asia. (p.122-137).
New York: Routledge.
Jilani, A.F.K. (2001). A Cultural History of Rohingya. Dhaka: Ahmed Jilani.
Kalir, B. & Sur, M. (2012). Transnational Flows and Permissive Polities.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Petcharamesree, S. (2009). The Human Rights Body: A Test for Democracy Building
in ASEAN.
Tang, L. (2005) Statelessness, Human Rights and Gender. Leiden: Nijhoff.
Weatherbee, D. & Emmers, R. (2005). International Relations in Southeast Asia.
Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Articles
Arendshorst, J. (2009). The Dilemma of Non-Interference: Myanmar, Human Rights,
and the ASEAN Charter. 8 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 102.
Balazo, P. (2015). Truth & Rights: Statelessness, Human Rights, and the Rohingya.
Undercurrent Journal, XI (I).
Electronic Media
Masilamani, L., & Peterson, J. (2014). The “ASEAN Way”: The Structural
Underpinnings of Constructive Engagement. Foreign Policy Journal.
36
Retrieved 30 May 2015, from
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/10/15/the-asean-way-the-
structural-underpinnings-of-constructive-engagement/
Websites
Aichr.org. (2015). About. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from http://aichr.org/about/
Aljazeera.com. (2015). UN and Myanmar spar over Rohingya at migrant talks.
Retrieved 27 May 2015, from
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/thailand-hosts-talks-regional-
migrant-crisis-150529032927779.html
Asean.org. (2015). ASEAN Socio - Cultural. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from
http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-socio-cultural-community
________. (2015). ASEAN Economic Community. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from
http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-economic-community.
________. (2015). Thirteenth ASEAN Summit, Singapore, 18-22 November 2007.
Retrieved 27 May 2015, from http://www.asean.org/news/item/thirteenth-
asean-summit-singapore-18-22-november-2007
Bangladeshcorruption. (2012). Rohingya Muslims Fight Bangladesh Corruption.
Retrieved 27 May 2015, from
http://bangladeshcorruption.wordpress.com/tag/rohingya-muslims/
BBC News, (2015). Timeline: Reforms in Myanmar. BBC News. Retrieved 27 May
2015, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16546688
Blogs.voanews.com, (2015). ASEAN Chief: Burma Unrest Could Radicalize
Rohingya Muslims VOA Breaking News. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/10/30/asean-chief-burma-
unrest-could-radicalize-rohingya-muslims-2/
Bookbinder, A. (2014). Ban Ki-Moon flip-flops on Rohingya identity. DVB
Multimedia Group. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from
https://www.dvb.no/news/ban-ki-moon-flip-flops-on-rohingya-identity-
burma-myanmar/45852
37
Burmalibrary.org. (2015). Union Citizenship Act, 1948. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from
http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs/UNION_CITIZENSHIP_ACT-1948.htm
Burmapartnership.org. (2015). Burma Partnership Parliamentarians Call on ASEAN
Member States to Back OIC Human Rights Council Resolution on Anti-
Muslim Violence in Myanmar. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from
http://www.burmapartnership.org/2013/05/parliamentarians-call-on-asean-to-
back-oic-hrc-resolution-on-anti-muslim-violence/
McKirdy, E., & Mohsin, S. (2015). UN: Myanmar must address root causes of
migrant crisis. CNN.com. Retrieved 29 May 2015, from
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/29/asia/thailand-regional-migrant-meeting/
DVB Multimedia Group. (2012). Gov’t will not recognise Rohingya: Thein Sein -
DVB Multimedia Group. Retrieved 29 May 2015, from
http://www.dvb.no/news/gov%E2%80%99t-will-not-recognise-rohingya-
thein-sein/22875
Foster, M. (2015). Rohingya crisis highlights toothless nature of ASEAN. Salon.com.
Retrieved 29 May 2015, from
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/19/rohingya_crisis_highlights_toothless_natu
re_of_asean/
Hindstrom, H. (2012). Burmese authorities targeting Rohingyas, UK parliament told -
DVB Multimedia Group. DVB Multimedia Group. Retrieved 29 May 2015,
from http://www.dvb.no/news/burmese-authorities-targeting-rohingyas-uk-
parliament-told/22676
Iem.ro. (2015). The impact of the global economic and financial crisis on East Asian
regionalism. Retrieved 29 May 2015, from http://www.iem.ro/ro/stiri-
analize/analize/320-the-impact-of-the-global-economic-and-financial-crisis-
on-east-asian-regionalism
Nationalityforall.org. (2015). What is Statelessness. Retrieved 30 May 2015, from
http://www.nationalityforall.org/whatis
NewsDesk. (2013). 'Useless' ASEAN human rights mechanism needs scrutiny-group.
www.NewsDesk.asia. Retrieved 30 May 2015, from
http://newsdesk.asia/useless-asean-human-rights-mechanism-needs-scrutiny-
group/
38
Bangkok.ohchr.org. (2015). Towards the Establishment of an ASEAN Human Rights
System. OHCHR Regional Office Bangkok. Retrieved 30 May 2015, from
http://bangkok.ohchr.org/programme/asean/.
Crichtong, H. & E. (2013). The Rohingya crisis of June 2012: A survivor's testimony.
Retrieved 10 June 2015, from
https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/hamid-emma-
crichton/rohingya-crisis-of-june-2012-survivors-testimony
Radio Free Asia, (2015). Rohingya Boat People from Myanmar Held at Refugee
Camp in Southern Thailand. Retrieved 10 June 2015, from
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/rohingya-boat-people-held-at-
refugee-camp-in-southern-thailand-05182015162819.html
Refugees, U. (2015). Refworld Burma Citizenship Law. Refworld. Retrieved 10 June
2015, from http://www.refworld.org/cgi-
bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3ae6b4f71b
________. (2015). Refworld | Regional Expert Roundtable on Good Practices for the
Identification, Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness and the Protection
of Stateless Persons in South East Asia. Refworld. Retrieved 10 June 2015,
from http://www.refworld.org/docid/4d6e09932.html
________. (2015). States of denial: A review of UNHCR's response to the protracted
situation of stateless Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. UNHCR. Retrieved 10
June 2015, from http://www.unhcr.org/4ee754c19.html
________. (2015). UNHCR - Myanmar. Retrieved 10 June 2015, from
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4877d6.html
Reuters. (2015). Myanmar ratifies ASEAN Charter: Singapore Minister. Retrieved 10
June 2015, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/18/us-myanmar-
asean
Szczepanski, K. (2015). Myanmar Facts and History. About.com Education.
Retrieved 10 June 2015, from
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/burmamyanmar/p/ProfileBurma.htm
The Guardian. (2014). Burma census is not counting Rohingya Muslims, says UN
agency. Retrieved 12 June 2015, from
39
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/02/burma-census-rohingya-
muslims-un-agency
The Irrawaddy. (2014). Myanmar Criticizes Ban Ki-moon Over Use of ‘Rohingya’
Term. Retrieved 12 June 2015, from http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma/govt-
criticizes-ban-ki-moon-use-rohingya-term.html
Tonkin, D. (2015). Myanmar Census 2014. Networkmyanmar.org. Retrieved 12 June
2015, from http://www.networkmyanmar.org/index.php/politics/myanmar-
census-2014
United to End Genocide. (2015). Burma - United to End Genocide. Retrieved 12 June
2015, from http://endgenocide.org/conflict-areas/burma/
Uscampaignforburma.org. (2015). U.S. Campaign for Burma - MMTimes: Govt
succeeds in keeping Rohingya off ASEAN Summit agenda. Retrieved 12 June
2015, from http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/new123/48-archived-
news/may-2014/6148-mmtimes-govt-succeeds-in-keeping-rohingya-off-asean-
summit-agenda.html
40
BIOGRAPHY
Name Mr Sherwan Jomkhamsing
Date of Birth July 19, 1990
Educational Attainment 2013: Bachelor of Law
Work Position Client Service Officer
Australian Embassy of Bangkok
Work Experiences Client Service Officer
Australian Embassy of Bangkok
Corporate Assistant
Kamthorn Surachet & Somsak (KSS) Law Firm