Comparative Study of the Roles of ASEAN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Responding to the Rohingya Crisis

Abstract

Since 2012, Southeast Asia has witnessed the human rights tragedy of the Rohingya people of Myanmar. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have been displaced from their homes and traveled to refugee facilities in Myanmar and Bangladesh, while others have been stranded on the Andaman Sea. The Rohingya crisis is perhaps the most horrific human rights tragedy after the crisis in Vietnam in the 1970s. As the crisis has developed, international communities, including ASEAN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), have responded to the crisis. As the main regional organization, ASEAN has been hoped to elucidate the crisis tactically through peaceful means. OIC, meanwhile, has been expected to join humanitarian action using a diplomatic approach to other international humanitarian bodies, including the UNHCR. However, it is obvious that ASEAN's response to the crisis has been limited to diplomatic oration and failed to prevent a wider crisis. For OIC, its humanitarian solidarity has lacked access to the target community. Therefore, this paper would like to attempt a comparative analysis to describe the central inquiry; how have ASEAN and OIC responded to the Rohingya crisis? This analysis involves studying ASEAN and OIC publications and related references. The initial argument of this paper is that both organizations have given reasonable responses to the crisis, but have been unable to halt its advance.

Why Indonesia Adopted ‘Quiet Diplomacy’ over R2P in the Rohingya Crisis: The Roles of Islamic Humanitarianism, Civil–Military Relations, and asean

“…With these interests in mind, Indonesia pursued the asean mode of quiet diplomacy, concentrated on humanitarian, technical, and economic assistance, rather than taking the more confrontational route of the oic. 138 Although asean states were generally reluctant to directly confront human rights issues, several scholars have argued that asean remained an important regional forum to pursue human rights goals.139 However, the 'asean Way' has resulted in what Rosyidin terms the 'action-identity gap' , where asean states adopt policies to ensure compliance with international human rights commitments, but face few consequences for violating these norms at the regional or national level.140 For instance, the former asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (aichr) representative from Indonesia, Dinna Wisnu, contradicted Indonesia's official position on the Rakhine crisis in 2018, encouraging the aichr and asean to respond more directly.141 Yet the asean Political Security Community and the aichr have, collectively, taken no concrete action to stop violence against the Rohingya following the escalation of violence in 2017, maintaining a soft diplomatic approach.142…”

Repatriation for Rohingya asylum seekers in Indonesia: a durable but almost impossible solution

“…At the diplomatic level, ASEAN has been "toothless" and apparently lacks the will and confidence to tackle the Rohingya crisis, instead relying on diplomatic rhetoric. 39 As the core regional organization for Southeast Asia, ASEAN should take a leading role in resolving the Rohingya crisis. ASEAN and its members have a moral obligation to take necessary measures, which should take priority over simply offering mere humanitarian assistance.…”

The Failure of Providing Human Security For Rohingya Refugees (Case Study: Escaping Rohingya Refugees From Shelter In Skb Bireuen, Aceh Province)

“…The document concludes fourteen mandates and functions. One is for the AICHR to actively and independently observe, evaluate, and investigate human rights practices in each ASEAN member states (Jati, 2017).…”