Challenging ASEAN : Responsibility to Protect for Rohingya Ahmad Burhan Hakim (burhanhernandez@gmail.com)
Master of International Relations Student Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta
Responsibility to Protect is new perspective in international relations toward looking in humanitarian interventions. Responsibility to Protect have three aspect, Responsibility to prevent, Responsibility to react and Responsibility to build. It uses in unhumanity condition and stuation if some or one of country didn’t keep their people by violation of human right such as genoside, etnic cleansing, mass killing and drive out the people from their land. Rohingnya is ordinary people (inlander) of Myanmar and they are not the outsider. Myanmar as the government which has a duty to keep/protect their people by terror and distruptions, instead do contrary action to Rohingya. Myanmar killed and drove out Rohingnya until they didn’t have land (Stateless) and tobe a refugee. I thing what happen in Myanmar espescially Rohingya is one of infranction of human right and big humanity issue today.
ASEAN the biggest international government organization in South East Asia must take action by this humanity tragedy. Rohingya must be helped , must be kept and must be gave a solve. ASEAN don’t too worry about non-interference principle in Asean Charter, because humanitarian interventions not talk about borders/sovereignty. It talks about human right and responsibility to protect a civilizations by uncivilizations action like Myanmar did to Rohingya. If Asean can take responsilbility to protect in Rohingya case, it will be rising up and to be the regional organization with peace and democratic orentations. In doing this research, author use an extensive of relevant published materials such as books, journals, reports, newsletters, official websites and others sources of a wide variety of topic related with the subject of topic.
Keywords : Responsibility to Protect, Humanitarian Interventions, Human Right, Rohingya, ASEAN.
Sub theme : International Relations and Security
A. Introduction
Responsibility to Protect is new perspective in international relations toward looking in humanitarian interventions. Responsibility to Protect have three aspect, Responsibility to prevent, Responsibility to react and Responsibility to build. This is a common step for doing Responsibility to Protect as tools of humanitarian interventions. As new doctrine in international relations approaches have many questions of it. how to use Responsibility to Protect? Who can use Responsibility to Protect? And why use Responsibility to Protect?. Responsibility to Protect uses in several condition, if the state cant protect their civil from genoside, etnic cleansing, mass killing and unhumantaraian issue.
the conflict, inter state conflict, intra state conflict, horizontal conflict and the other conflict. The military interventions is the lasted choice from the Responsibility to Protect perspective. We took before that Responsibility to Protect have three aspect or three step by doing and duty. Responsibility to prevent is began of opereation by humanitarian interventions. Preventif approaches is the important one, because every conflict have to disscue before. The element of prevent like economic, sosial, law as humanitarian assisntent.
If the Responsibility to prevent not effective the we can do Responsibility to react. In this case the state or international organizations can do it with the military interventions. The second step focus how kept the civilizations by violating, mass killing and others. Military interventions uses to protect civilizations by their state or group do unhumanitarian interventions. But this step it have big consequenses, because the military perspective is used. Author thing is the general view or general perspective by Responsibility to react. Reactions means if the consolidations and reunifications did not work to hit the conflict.
After military interventions (Responsibility to react) we have Responsibility to rebuild. The last step is not also uses by state which do Responsibility to protect. Develop country after military interventions is importan one. But in fact, the last step seldom uses by country or state used Responsibility to protect, because the reason of actor, we are just kept your civil but in development after that is your responsibility. So the new doctrine of Responsibility to protect must be have rule for the actor to build and develop the subject of Responsibility to protect and its include as your responsibility.
ASEAN is the biggest international oragnizations in south east asia as representative by state have duty to make condition and situation be secure in regionalism. ASEAN have function to make collective assignment to kept the regional by violating of human right of kept by humanity issue. Several days ago Myanmar have the big problem about humanity. Rohingnya as auntentic or original people in Myanmar has drove out by government of Myanmar. Author thing that phenomenon is unusual, because Myanmar have strike the human issue like rohingnya. ASEAN must have attentions and direct participants by this issue. It have to action, and have kept rohingya by murdered, government of Myanmar as legal institutions to kept their people instead strike and kill rohingnya. Author thing it is the unhumanitarian problem. ASEAN must be take responsibility by this phenomenon.
B. Theoretical Framework
B.1 Humanitarian Interventions
intervention must bulid and make better situation than, but it was not just for mass killing, genoside and ethnic cleansing, it have recocnation about disaster, air accident and anothers.
Indeed, it is much harder to find someone who completely supports nonintervention nowadays. The lack of action in Rwanda (or, more accurately,lack of effective action) and the subsequent genocide has had a massive impact on the theory and practice of intervention. Even those who are deeply suspicious of armed humanitarian intervention and deeply sceptical about its prospects of success may still admit that it might, in theory, be justified when a humanitarian crisis is sufficiently serious. (James Pattison:2010:43) Building on the Just War principle of ‘right authority’, it is often claimed that humanitarian intervention must be authorized by the appropriate body, by which most mean the UN Security Council. As discussed in Chapter 1, in their endorsement of the responsibility to protect, states at the 2005 World Summit asserted that any robust action should be undertaken through the Security Council (UN: 2005: 30) . in Rwanda case there are not states have responsibility to taken it, authors suggest there are not interest by big country to like United States to have respon and responsibility.
It should also be noted that the ICISS (2001a) argue for the abandonment of the term ‘humanitarian intervention’ in favour of the language of the ‘responsibility to protect’. The reasons they give include the international opposition to the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ (ICISS 2001a: 9) and that the language of the humanitarian intervention focuses attention on the claims, rights, and prerogatives of interveners rather than potential beneficiaries (2001a: 16–18). The risk is that general opposition to humanitarian intervention will transfer to the notion of the responsibility to protect, and therefore risk jeopardizing the potential contributions of the latter beyond humanitarian intervention (e.g. the acceptance of sovereignty as responsibility (see Bellamy 2009a: 112). It is better then, as Bellamy(2009b: 198) argues, to distinguish sharply between the responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention to avoid the responsibility to protect being seen solely as humanitarian intervention in disguise. To do this, we need separate terms. Indeed, the ICISS (implicitly) seem to recognize the need still for the notion of humanitarian intervention, since they repeatedly use the cumbersome phrase ‘intervention for human protection purposes’ throughout their report as a synonym for humanitarian intervention. (james pattison : 2010 : 25)
of humanitarian intervention, which, despite their difficulties, are still generally regarded as instances of ‘humanitarian intervention (james pattison : 2010 : 25-26)
The second defining condition concerns the circumstances of intervention: humanitarian intervention takes place where there is actual or impending grievous suffering or loss of life. This condition concerns only the circumstances in the target state that enable us to say that an intervener is engaged in ‘humanitarian intervention’ rather than those that relate to its being justifiably engaged in humanitarian intervention. Of course, as argued earlier, for humanitarian intervention to be justifiable, this humanitarian crisis may have to be serious. The third defining condition concerns who can undertake humanitarian intervention. In short, humanitarian intervention is conducted by an external agent. This means that a state resolving its own humanitarian crisis or an insurrection by a group within the state to end a crisis are not examples of a ‘humanitarian intervention’, whereas a state intervening to resolve another state’s humanitarian crisis is. Thus, humanitarian intervention must be transboundary. Such ‘outside parties’ can range from the UN to other states to PMCs.
Fourth, it is widely held that humanitarian intervention must have a humanitarian intention (e.g. Seybolt 2007: 7; Teso´n 2005c). That is to say, to be ‘humanitarian’, an intervention must have the predominant purpose of preventing, reducing, or halting actual or impending loss of life and human suffering, whatever the underlying reasons—its ‘motives’—for wishing to do so. Chapter 6 defends this claim, and the difference between an intervener’s motives and its intentions, in more detail (I also reject the definitional significance of humanitarian motives and outcomes). For now, it will suffice to note that an agent’s intentions are key to classifying its actions and, as such, to be engaged in the action of ‘humanitarian intervention’, it is necessary that an intervener has a humanitarian intention. It follows that humanitarian intervention is not the same as intervention for other purposes, such as intervention for self-defence and collective security (unless these interventions contain a significant humanitarian purpose). The main objective of anintervener must be to tackle an ongoing humanitarian crisis in the target state, such as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the mass violation of basichuman rights. (James Pattison : 2010 : 26-27)
B.2 Responsibility to protect
It is important to note, however, that the responsibility to protect is both broader and narrower than humanitarian intervention, and, more generally, the status of the responsibility to protect is still subject to much dispute. The international community should also pursue other measures, short of military intervention, such as military, diplomatic, and economic incentives and sanctions, and the use of international criminal prosecutions (e.g. referral to the International Criminal Court). Moreover, in the post-conflict phase, there is the responsibility to rebuild to ensure that the conditions that prompted the military intervention do not repeat themselves.
implications of the doctrine is to move away from the narrow choice of military intervention or no action, to a broad array of non-military measures before, during, and after the crisis. On the other hand, the responsibility to protect doctrine is narrower than humanitarian intervention. As I will define it (in Section 1.5), ‘humanitarian intervention’ can be undertaken in response to a variety of humanitarian crises and does not require Security Council authorization. Humanitarian intervention under the responsibility to protect umbrella is much more circumscribed. The degree to which this is the case depends on the particular account of the responsibility to protect adopted. (Paul Williams : 2008 : 23-18)
To see this, consider some of the key differences between the ICISS doctrine and the agreement at theWorld Summit.15 On the ICISS version of the responsibility to protect, (a) the responsibility to protect transfers to the international community when the state involved is unable or unwilling to look after its citizens’ human rights. (b)Military intervention will meet the just cause threshold in circumstances of ‘serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur’ and, in particular, actual or apprehended “large-scale loss of life” or “large-scale ethnic cleansing”’ (ICISS 2001a: XII). (c) When the state primarily responsible for its people fails to act, reacting robustly to the crisis is a fall-back responsibility of the international community in general (ICISS 2001a: 17). (d) The Security Council should be the first port of call for humanitarian intervention, but alternative sources of authority (such as the Uniting for Peace procedure) are not to be completely discounted (ICISS 2001a: 53). (e) Interventionmust meet four additional precautionary principles (right intention, last resort, proportional means, and reasonable prospects) (ICISS 2001a: XII). (Paul Williams : 2008 : 40-45)
R2P’s next milestone came in 2009, when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released the report “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect,” outlining three principles, or “pillars,” of R2P.3 The first pillar describes the new approach in relation to sovereignty, highlighting that states have the primary responsibility to protect their own civilians against mass atrocities crimes. Pillar two asserts that the international community is committed to providing assistance to states to build their capacities to prevent such mass atrocities, and that “prevention is a key ingredient for a successful strategy for the responsibility to protect.” The third pillar says that in cases where a state is unable to provide protection for its citizens, the international community has the responsibility to respond “collectively in a timely and decisive manner… to provide such protection.”4 The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (A/RES/63/308), taking note of the report and subsequent debate within the UNGA (Alex Stark :2007:4).
responsibility to react and the responsibility to rebuild. It is said that‘[p]revention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect (Eve Massingham:2009:807).
Thomas Weiss traces the evolution of the R2P concept since its inception in 2001. Weiss notes that although R2P is often described as an “emerging” norm, it has already played a decisive role in shaping international debates about human rights violations and humanitarian response. He points to a tension and challenge that lies at the heart of conceptualizing and operationalizing R2P. On the one hand it must not be defined too broadly, as “broadening perspectives has opened the floodgates to an overflow of appeals to address too many problems.” Yet on the other hand, it must not be defined too narrowly, as R2P “is not only about the use of military force (Alex Stark :2007:5).
Alex J. Bellami explain there are three concept of R2P : Responsibility to Prevent, Responsibility to React and Responsibility to Rebuild. First, Responsibility to Prevent, Responsibility is the prevention of deadly conflict is one of the fundamental goals of UN. Indeed , the whole endeavor of UN peacekeeping grew out oh the secretary general’s belief tht the primary contribution that world organization could make to international peace and security was in the prevention and resolution of armed conflict. Then ICISS called for the UN Security Council to play a leading role and identified four keys dimensions of root cause prevention : Political ( relating good governance, human right, confidence –building), Economic (realting to proverty, inequality and economic ooportunity), Legal (relating to the rule of law and accountability) and Military (realating to disarmament, reintegration and sectoral reform) (Alex J. Bellami: 2008 : 427).
Second, Responsibility to React as one of specific question of humanitarian intervention, what the ICISS called. Two crusial aspirations informed the commission’s approach. First, it wanted to avoid future situation like Kosovo, when the UN security council was paralyzed vy division. Second, it wanted to avoid future disaster like Rwanda, when the world stood aside of genoside unfolded (Alex J. Bellami: 2008 : 427). Third, the label Responsibility to Rebuild is something of misnomer because the aim after an episode of genoside, mass killing, or ethnic cleansing is not to ‘rebuild’ a society by returning it to pre-war state but to transform it into something new. After all, the pre-war society contained within it the seeds of mass killing destruction. The ICISS argued that potential interventers should have a strategic plan about how they intend to transform societies (Alex J. Bellami: 2008 : 432). States which have interest in interventions such as R2P must reinterpred all condition before do, because if the states made decision to intervens so theya must have considerate three aspec about responsibility to protect. It’s the main of condition and consideration behave.
B.3 Sovereignty
constitutional power sharing arrangements. A condition of any one state’s sovereignty is a corresponding obligation to respect every other state’s sovereignty: the norm of non-intervention is enshrined in Article 2.7 of the UN Charter. A sovereign state is empowered in international law to exercise exclusive and total jurisdiction within its territorial borders. Other states have the corresponding duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. If that duty is violated, the victim state has the further right to defend its territorial integrity and political independence. In the era of decolonization, the sovereign equality of states and the correlative norm of nonintervention received its most emphatic affirmation from the newly independent states.
At the same time, while intervention for human protection purposes was extremely rare, during the Cold War years state practice reflected the unwillingness of many countries to give up the use of intervention for political or other purposes as an instrument of policy. Leaders on both sides of the ideological divide intervened in support of friendly leaders against local populations, while also supporting rebel movements and other opposition causes in states to which they were ideologically opposed. None were prepared to rule out a priori the use of force in another country in order to rescue nationals who were trapped and threatened there. (ICISS : 2001 : 12-13 )
Membership of the United Nations was the final symbol of independent sovereign statehood and thus the seal of acceptance into the community of nations. The UN also became the principal international forum for collaborative action in the shared pursuit of the three goals of state building, nation building and economic development. The UN was therefore the main arena for the jealous protection, not the casual abrogation, of state sovereignty. The UN is an organization dedicated to the maintenance of international peace and security on the basis of protecting the territorial integrity, political independence and national sovereignty of its member states. But the overwhelming majority of today’s armed conflicts are internal, not inter-state. Moreover, the proportion of civilians killed in them increased from about one in ten at the start of the 20th century to around nine in ten by its close. (ICISS : 2001 : 13 )
This has presented the organization with a major difficulty: how to reconcile its foundational principles of member states’ sovereignty and the accompanying primary mandate to maintain international peace and security (“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”) – with the equally compelling mission to promote the interests and welfare of people within those states (“We the peoples of the United Nations”). The Secretary-General has discussed the dilemma in the conceptual language of two notions of sovereignty, one vesting in the state, the second in the people and in individuals. His approach reflects the ever-increasing commitment around the world to democratic government (of, by and for the people) and greater popular freedoms. The second notion of sovereignty to which he refers should not be seen as any kind of challenge to the traditional notion of state sovereignty. Rather it is a way of saying that the more traditional notion of state sovereignty should be able comfortably to embrace the goal of greater self-empowerment and freedom for people, both individually and collectively.(ICISS : 2001:14)
B.4 Human Security
security concerns (among them war-affected children, racial discrimination, women’s rights, refugees), coupled with former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s personal interest in and commitment to human security activism, catapulted these questions to the forefront of the scholarly and policy research agenda in the 1990s (see MacFarlane and Khong 2006). This agenda accompanied the long-standing human security concerns of students and practitioners of international development – an agenda that. has generally tended to focus on the ways that globalization dynamics have damaged the prospects for human development and the provision of basichuman needs.
Despite the growing investment of research and interest in human security, to date, there is no real consensus on what can or should constitute the focus of what are still loosely termed human security studies. There continues to be considerable methodological, definitional and conceptual disquiet about the real meaning of human security, and about the implications of the human security paradigm for the study or the practice of International Relations. This should come as no surprise, given the nature of the academic enterprise and the different disciplinary and methodological backgrounds informing the work of scholars engaged in human security research. (Even so, the evident inability of scholars to advance beyond theoretical debates over definitions towards practical policy recommendations understandably frustrates practitioners in the policy community.) There is also a great unevenness in the depth (and breadth) of research on particular themes. Some issues, such as anti-personnel landmines or small arms, are well ploughed; the literature on these subjects is rich not only in analysis of particular problems and causes, but also in implications for public policy. Other problems, such as gender-directed violence, are only just beginning to receive the sort of attention they deserve as evils in their own right and as sources and symptoms of human insecurity. (Paul Williams :2008 :229-230)
There are arguably three distinct conceptions of human security that shape current debates. The first is what might be termed the natural rights/rule of law conception of human security, anchored in the fundamental liberal assumption of basic individual rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, and of the international community’s obligation to protect and promote these rights (Alston 1992, Lauren 1998, Morsink 1998). A second view of human security is humanitarian. This is the view of human security that, for example, informs international efforts to deepen and strengthen international law, particularly regarding genocide and war crimes, and to abolish weapons that are especially harmful to civilians and non-combatants (Boutros-Ghali 1992, Moore 1996, UN 1995, 1999, UNDP 1997).
globalization, and the health of the environment, including the world’s atmosphere and oceans, are all legitimate subjects of concern in terms of how they affect the ‘security’ of the individual (UNDP 1994, Nef 2002).
C. Methodology
Authors use explanatory design in this paper. It mean uses there are many teory such as humanitarian intervention and, human right and responsibility to protect to explain the case in south east asia especially rohignya in Myanmar . Unit analyzes is group, states international organization and group. states analyzed is Myanmar and ASEAN,. Thoses states and are includeding in ou discussion about intervention in Rohingnya . International organization such ASEAN are reperesentative of international community which approve the R2P in Myanmar. The authors use desk library research to get data by books, journal, magazines and so on as representative secondary data. Desk library research is used because it was the possible metode to get data . author belief that metode has representative and objective details.
D. Paper Explanation
D.1 ASEAN Take Action
ASEAN as south east organization has particulary norms and principles towards its member. Al least, there are four norms and principles that underline the sustainability of ASEAN. Firstly, opposing the use of violence and prioritizing peace full solution. Secondly, regional autonomy. Thirdly , non –interfence principle. Fourthly, refusing the establishment of military alliance and emphasizing bilateral security cooperations (amitav acharcya : 2001). Therefore, ASEAN has been criticized for its position in Myanmar, in particular for its policies of “non-interfence” and contructive enggagment (humantitarian practice network : ASEAN). Considering the ineffectiveness of ASEAN, the case of rohingnya in Myanmar need more powerfull organization and greater aid. Thi is inevitable mve moment where the united nations can participate thoroughly to resolve the conflict in Myanmar. The outrageously aggressive repression, denial of citizenship, forced labour, and arbitrary confiscation of property. (human right watch, 2015). To rohingnya as etnic minority han conceded this as crimes against humanity. Thus, it touches the sense of human security where it relates to the problem of individual will being and safety . (B. Mendowitz, 1974).
Myanmar is south east asia nation that belongs to united nations member states. It has mandatory obligation to commit compliance with principle in charter of United nations. On of principles is to maintain international peace and security, and to the end : to take or collective measure for the prevention and removal of threat to the peace. And for the suppression of acts of agreesion or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peacefull means and in conformity with the principle of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international dispute or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace (united nations, 2015). So, in order to maintain international peace and security , Myanmar ought to create its national peace first.
reproduction is two children only and theya are not also recognized as citizen and face persecuetion. (BBC news, 2001). The government of Myanmar applied this policy because they believe that the more people of rohingnya exits the more problem appear. As result . thousand Rohingnya have been forcibly leaving Myanmar and become boad people currenly. It is very terrible seeing numerous rohingnya died in the sea. It is very inhuman phenomenon. Therefore, humanitarian assistance such as responsibility to protect is totally necessary. The prolonged conflict in Myanmar has created great anttention for the world to look after it. Evethough there is a special regional organization in south east asia namely ASEAN. But ASEAN not have effective respon with rohinya in Myanmar.
Special principle about non-internfence must avoided to take responsibility to protect or humanitarian action in Myanmar. Myanmar as legal state is was not kept their citizen by mass killing and genoside (Rohingya). Myanmar have to responsibility by their action in their citizen. Rohinya as ordinary people in Myanmar have equal right and equal obigations as Myanmar people. On other hand, ASEAN must be denied Myanmar access as member of ASEAN. Myanmar must be punished by ASEAN such as economic embargo, trading embargo or drive out Myanmar from membership of ASEAN. Author thing that ASEAN is very democratic organization, so ASEAN must be show to wolrd thar ASEAN pro with humanity and pro with human right. If the ASEAN take action in Myanmar only just negotiation and contraproductin minds, then military intervention in Myanmar is very possible and logic strategis to solve and kept rohingya by their government. .
D.2 Rohingnya and Human Security
In May 2015, a double tragedy unfolded in the Bay of Bengal when Thai authorities discovered camps where refugees and migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar had been held in transit, and been so badly treated that many had died. The disclosure led to a crisis when the smugglers absconded. Their clients had nowhere to go but sailed around without enough food or water, until they were allowed to land in Malaysia, Indonesia or Thailand. Meanwhile many died. This was the first – acute – tragedy. The other is permanent. Many of the perhaps 1.3 million Rohingya, the majority of whom live in Myanmar without citizenship rights, while the remaining reside in Bangladesh or other countries, have so poor living conditions, or are so badly treated, that tens of thousands place their fate in the hands of smugglers. As long as this tragedy is allowed to persist, it will lead to new acute crises. (prio.org : 2105)
Rohingya has become the most ironic phennomenon in Southeast Asia. Since 1990s, they have been exiled, displaced from their homeland in northern Myanmar. According to UNHCR, almost 140,000 people still displaced in Rakhine State, while over 800,000 persons are estimated to be without citizenship in the northern part of the State. This conditions “were gravely concerned” by UNHCR and seem to be one of the biggest humanitarian challenge in Southeast Asia today. However, while international community has expressed its concerns regarding the Rohingya problem, we also witness lack of responses from Government’s officials in Southeast Asia. Until present, there is no significant response from ASEAN as the biggest regional institution in Southeast Asia, who aims to construct a ‘political security community by 2015.
identity. If we want to identify Rohingya, there will be a question: “who are Rohing people? Are they Burmese, or belong to other nationals? Myanmar’s citizen act has ironically denied Rohing as one of their citizen, thus excluding the Rohing people out from Myanmar. However, they are also unable to be identified as Bangladeshi, for example, because they have inhabited the Burmese land since hundreds years ago, even before the British colonial age. (ugm.ac.id/Asean Studies Center : 2015)
Thus, the main problems facing Rohing people now is the identity problem –the exclusion of Rohing from the existing Westphalian political order. This should be addressed more critically by International Relations scholars. Second, the Rohingya problem is also closely related to the political authoritarianism in Myanmar who uses its political apparatuses to repress the Rohings and exile them out from the state. Even though the authoritarian government has been much more softened within these years, the Rohingya problem is still untouchable. According to Ahmad Suaedy, one of Indonesian activist who declared his support to minority groups in ASEAN People’s Forum 2014, any attempts to discuss the Rohingya problem was cut by the local Monk. Even the government stopped any attempts to discuss this issue at ASEAN meeting. Therefore, any attempts to find a political solution to Rohingya problem have been constrained by the authoritarian regime in Myanmar.
Third, the Rohingya problem is also aggravated by the lack of response from ASEAN Member States as well as the ASEAN Institution. This is ironic because since 2003, 10 ASEAN Member States have agreed to establish a political community in the region by 2015 and since 2009 they have signed the ASEAN Charter. According to the Charter, ASEAN shall become a ‘people-oriented organisation’ and there will be a Human Rights Body in ASEAN (Later known as ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights/AICHR). Even though the body has been established since 2009, it also faces incapacity in dealing with various human rights issues, including its silence in a ‘sensitive’ minority issue like Rohingya. (ugm.ac.id/Asean Studies Center : 2015)
For the boat people of Southeast Asia, each day begins with a thickening sense of uncertainty, despair and a fading glimmer of hope. Thousands have been rescued in the past month by authorities and fishermen in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia after being stranded in the Andaman Sea. While some are Bangladeshis migrating for better jobs abroad, the majority are Rohingya Muslims escaping persecution in Myanmar. After last month's regional summit in Thailand in which 17 countries participated, along with the UN refugee agency and the International Organisation for Migration, the host said major progress had been made. However, the meeting failed to address the root cause of the problem; delegates refrained from uttering the word "Rohingya" to ensure Myanmar's participation, even though the Rohingya are the principal victims of the crisis. The summit's failure to effectively address a humanitarian crisis shows the inherent weakness of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in grappling with regional issues. Some argue that the boat people crisis is not particularly an "Asean problem", saying we shouldn't hold all of Southeast Asia accountable for Myanmar's ethnocentric policies. However, the reality is that Asean's existing structure limits its ability to put into force the collective political will to mitigate this human tragedy. (scmp.com : 2015)
representative and democratic regionlisme. Author thing rohingya issue isnot soft human issue but it is the heavy issue of human right. If the ASEAN want to kept and moving forward future and dream organization in southeast asia problem of rohingya must be solve before.
E. Conclusion
Conflict intra state in Myanmar must be solve with several approaches in conflict resolution. ASEAN have play their position as international organization in region of southeast Asia. Myanmar have to punished by their done with rohingya. Rohingnya is human being, rohingya is part of internastional group and commnutiy. As usual human being in the world have and given and human right. Human right is main or mother of sosiological instrument to make democration. Author thing its time for ASEAN to play their role in southeast asia. Play recognization by asean charter as basic law. ASEAN charter in democratic purposes is part of humanity, without humanity never groe democrati.
If the case of rohingya cant be solve by ASEAN author an prediction that ASEAN cant tobe the big and representative regionalism in southeast asia. ASEAN will be the place of coffe break of membership, ASEAN such as kondominium, appartement and hotel where the people can visit just talking everything. Author hope ASEAN can proud by the world that ASEAN is ready to fight violence of human right and tobe the real regionalism more than Europian Union. Last ASEAN can do logis and rational stratrgic in Rohingya, Responsibility to protect is not just UN doctrine but ASEAN can do it for their human being.
Dal lago , Alessandro and Salvatore Palidda.2010.Conflict Security and The Reshaping of Society : The Civilization of War. Routlegde. New York
Hale , Henry E. 2008.The Foundations of Etnic Politics Separatism of States and Nations in Eurasia and the World . Cambrige University Press. Cambrige
Henderson, Conway W..2010.Understanding International Law. Willey-Blackwell. Oxford
Pattison, James .2010.Humanitarian Interventions and the Responsibility to Protect. Oxford university press. New york.
Williams , Paul D. 2008. Security Studies an Introduction . Routlegde. New York.
Wolff , Stefan 2006.Etnic conflict a global perspective.. Oxford university press. New york.
Journal
Weiss ,Thomas G.. 2011.Responsibility to Protect : Challenges and Opportunities In Light of Libya intervention. (journal of e-international relations)
Gartner , Heinz. 2009. Responsibility to Protect and Libya. Austrian Institute of International Affairs . (journal)
Ayoob, Mohammed .2002. Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty. The International Jurnal of Human Right. London . Published by Frank Cass. London
Pattison, James. 2009. Humanitarian Interventions, the Responsibility to Protec an jus I bello. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher. univesiry of The West of England. Bristol.
Website
http://asc.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/news-making-asean-works/
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1823719/rohingya-refugee-crisis-can-be-solved-only-if-asean-musters
