Muslim Solidarity and the Lack of Effective Protection for Rohingya Refugees in Southeast Asia

Abstract

Southeast Asia has the weakest normative frameworks for refugee protection of any region in the world apart from the Middle East. Only two out of ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have signed the 1951 International Refugee Convention. Nevertheless, the 2012 ASEAN Human Rights Declaration explicitly mentions the right to seek and receive asylum ‘in accordance with the laws of such State and applicable international agreements’ (ASEAN 2012). One of the litmus tests for this right has been the regional treatment of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority from Myanmar that faces forced displacement, discrimination, and large-scale state violence. Based on media content analysis and a scientific literature review, this paper sheds light on how ASEAN’s most prominent Muslim member countries, Indonesia and Malaysia, advocate on behalf of the forcibly displaced Rohingya. In particular, this paper focuses on competing forms of political interventions and shifting notions of Muslim solidarity. While Indonesia and Malaysia have been very vocal in bilateral, regional, and international forums to criticise the Myanmar government for their violation of basic human rights, both countries remain highly reluctant to offer sanctuary to Rohingya refugees, of which several thousand have attempted to reach Indonesia and Malaysia. This research finds that the notion of Muslim solidarity remains a symbolic rhetoric primarily directed at domestic audiences and the failure to render effective protection to refugees has rather increased over the last five years.

The Rohingya Refugee Crisis in Southeast Asia: Asean’s Role and Way Forward

“…The complexity of the Rohingya refugee crisis has been compounded by the response of several Southeast Asian nations. In 2015, Malaysia and Thailand turned away boats carrying thousands of desperate Rohingya in what was known as exodus of "boat people" (Missbach & Stange, 2021). Neither Thailand nor Malaysia were willing to accept the arrival of Rohingya, fearing that more refugees will flood in if they accept the migrants into their countries (Moretti, 2020).…”

“…Indonesia also staged protest against the sectarian violence of Rohingya Muslims, condemning the Myanmar government for their violation of basic human rights against the Rohingya people. Indonesia offered help to tackle the crisis for humanitarian assistance and called for robust foreign intervention and support for the Rohingya (Missbach & Stange, 2021).…”

“…In 2017, Malaysian government introduced the pilot scheme allowing the Rohingya refugees opportunity for legal employment in the country before relocation to third world nations (Kumar, 2017). The pilot program allowed a group of 300 Rohingya to work legally in manufacturing and plantation sector (Missbach & Stange, 2021). Despite strong support and humanitarian assistance rendered to Rohingya refugees, however Malaysia's policies and stance towards the refugees have visibly changed.…”

“…Despite the individual efforts, Malaysia and Indonesia have strongly urged for a better collective cooperation and exert pressure to the organisation to address the crisis (Morada, 2021). However, in the wake of global pandemic, Malaysia now refuses to accept Rohingya refugees at its shore, pushes the refugees back to sea, or detains them as 'illegal migrants' (Missbach & Stange, 2021). Malaysia's Immigration Act stipulates that illegal migrants who enters the country illegally are subject to fine of not less than RM10,000, up to five years' imprisonment and not more than 6 strokes of whipping sentence (Amnesty, 2020).…”

The Impossibility of Home: Displacement and Border Practices in Times of Crisis

“…Returning to the international sphere, papers by Missbach and Stange (2021), and by O'Brien and Hoffstaedter (2020), look at the mass displacement of Rohingya people from Myanmar. Southeast Asia has weak frameworks for human rights protections.…”