INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS IN MYANMAR: A TEST CASE FOR ASEAN AND INDONESIA
I. Background
Forced migration has grown considerably around the world and becoming a major political and social issue in many countries. Most forced migration happened when crises occurs in a country, caused by armed or violent conflict, man-made or natural disaster, persecution or development projects. In that situation, a very large number of people can be uprooted in a very short period of time. Popular usage tends to call them all “refugees”, though in legal terms, refugees are quite a narrow category. The majority of involuntary or forced migrant flee for reasons not explicitly recognized by the international refugee law, while others will flee from their homes but do not cross the internationally recognized state boundary.
This second type is commonly known as Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (ICRC) estimated that 26 million peoples around the world are internally displaced, mostly because of armed conflict. Most IDPs share the same miseries: driven from their homes and deprived of security, water, sanitary and hygiene, food, livelihood and support from the communities. Some parts of the world are the most common sources of the refugees or IDPs such as Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic or Somalia in Africa as well as Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Myanmar in Asia.
For the purpose of this paper, I would like to narrow down the case of IDPs to Myanmar, home of more than 500.000 IDPs as a result of natural disaster (Cyclone Nargis in May 2008) and persecution against minorities by the government (Chin, Karen, Kachin, Rohingya, Mon and Shan). I would also like to recommend what Indonesia should and ought to do in order to assist the problem at bilateral level as well as at regional level through ASEAN.
II. Analysis
UNHCR defined IDPs as “persons who, as a result of persecution, armed conflict or violence, have been forced to abandon their homes and leave their usual place of residence, and who remain within the borders of their own country’” Although the number of IDPs is higher than refugees, most of them are often without any effective protection or assistance. There are no international legal instruments or institutions specifically designed to protect IDPs, although they are covered by general human rights conventions. The Displacement and Protection Support Section of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA) advocates a set of Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which summarizes international law in this area, and is designed to encourage governments to adopt appropriate measures.[1] Castles (2005) mentioned that the key problem to protect and grant the rights to IDPs is sovereignty. In international law, IDPs are the responsibility of the national government, yet it is often this very government that has persecuted and displaced them.[2]
Myanmar is a multiethnic country, comprises Burman as majority ethnic group and minorities such as Mon, Shan, Karen, Kachin, and Rohingya. Since the independence from Britain in 1948, the government has to deal with various internal minority conflicts which try to secede from Yangoon. Instead of set up a peaceful dialogue with these various tribes, the government chooses to face them with forces. Minorities have also being the target of repressive government policies which resulted in the thwarting economic development of their traditional areas.
IDPs in Myanmar, particularly minorities are facing the exact situation illustrated by Castles. The government persecutes and denies almost all of their basic rights. IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre) reported that the escalation of armed conflict between the Tatmadaw (Myanmar Armed Forces) and the minority insurgent groups had intensified since June 2009 and forced more than 470.000 people to flee their homes in the Eastern Myanmar.[3] From 1989 to 1995, the government and minorities insurgent groups have agreed to ceasefire. However, the fighting resumed in 2009 when the Tatmadaw planned to integrate those armed groups into Border Guard Forces, and put them under the command of Tatmadaw, which was opposed by these groups.[4]
Extortion, land confiscation, forced labour, false accusation and torture, rape, and the denied citizenship are the most prominent roots of internal displacement. The government (the State Peace and Development Council/SPDC) often uses violent action to confiscate lands and force the inhabitants to move in order to exploit minerals, natural gas, or to build dam as well as to extort the inhabitants as forced labourers, minesweepers or porters[5]. While in the Western area such as in the Arakan State, the predominantly Muslim Rohingya had been facing the denial of citizenship[6], travel restriction and the confiscation of their lands for Tatmadaw farms or businesses which forced them to flee to Bangladesh, India, Middle East, Thailand or Indonesia.
There are mixed response from the region, state or international organization on this matter. The SPDC does not recognize that there are IDPs in Myanmar, let alone the responsibility in preventing and addressing that situation. Since the government is the party instigates the IDPs, the issue becomes politically sensitive, while on the same time they also think that there is no particular international concern needed to be directed to the IDPs in Myanmar. The government also does not grant access to the conflict-affected areas to the international humanitarian organizations and refuses the outside involvement on the IDPs situation.
ASEAN as the inter-governmental organization in South East Asia region, in which Myanmar is also the member, tends to act carefully in order not to infringe the politically sensitive domestic issue in Myanmar. It utilized “constructive engagement” for a while towards Myanmar, hoped that by having a dialogue, maintaining contact and avoiding isolation of the Myanmar junta, it will eventually comprehend its repressive policies, suppression of democracy and tyranny over its citizens. In order to sustain their policy of “constructive engagement”, ASEAN has developed a ‘Principle of Situational Uniqueness’. This principle will encourage ASEAN to consider factors such as demography, culture, history, economic and social condition as well as political environment in addressing human rights situation in its member countries. The ASEAN member states will promote human rights without sacrificing domestic stability and harmony, which themselves impinge directly and crucially on human rights.[7] However, in 2005 for the first time, ASEAN conveyed its concern over the lack of political progress in Myanmar and even persuade Myanmar to abandon its turn to chair ASEAN.
The shift of ASEAN’s policy however, does not change the attitude of the SPDC towards its citizens. Countries which choose to engage Myanmar by pouring investment and doing trade in natural resources such as natural gas, timber and mineral will find that the junta is using the most recent investment and foreign currency reserves not to improve the conditions of the people but to expand its army and militarize the economy even further. To fund these forms of internal repression and military excursions against minorities, the SPDC has sold enormous logging and fishing concessions which have resulted in the systematic destruction of the country’s environment and major problems for the region’s ecological system.[8] Though, it is also crucial to mention that one of the institutional arrangements under the ASEAN Charter is the establishment of the inter-governmental commission on human rights, which principally can be utilized to address the issue of humanitarian situation and IDPs in Myanmar. Moreover, when the Nargis Cyclone devastated Myanmar in 2008, ASEAN in collaboration with the UN and government of Myanmar has established the Recovery Coordination Centre (RCC) to assist the victims from the search and rescue stage to recovery programs both psychologically and socio-economically. In similar manners, ASEAN can utilize RCC mechanism to deal with the IDPs problem.
III. Recommendation
In order to cope with the humanitarian situation in Myanmar, particularly the IDPs situation, there are several recommendations that should be done by Indonesia and ASEAN, as follows:
First, Indonesia should maximize its leverage and position as the Chair of ASEAN in 2011 by calling attention on the humanitarian situation in Myanmar. Indonesia could also suggest utilizing the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting Retreat to talk and engage Myanmar in a less tense atmosphere, rather than in formal meeting such as ASEAN Summit or other venues. In this regard, where the government of Myanmar denies the existence of IDPs within its borders, ASEAN and particularly Indonesia as the champion of human rights in Southeast Asia should offers assistance as part of good faith, as outlined in Principle 25, of the Guiding Principle on Internal Displacement.[9]
Second, Indonesia should also play a more active role in coordinating with the UN-OCHA by strengthening tripartite cooperation of the Recovery Coordination Centre (RCC) in analyzing the humanitarian situation and key priorities to improve the humanitarian situation in Myanmar. The collaboration with the international organization will ensure the continuity of support, the sustainability of fund and the attention to the problem of IDPs and humanitarian situation in Myanmar. It is also important to ensure IDPs access to basic needs such as health care, food, sanitation, and education, something that have been denied by the government of Myanmar for so long. While it is also worth mentioning the importance of de-mining and mine-awareness training as well as part of the RCC mechanism to ensure the safety of civilians in the armed opposition group areas.
Third, ASEAN and Indonesian as well should persuade Myanmar to grant access and guarantee the safety of humanitarian aid workers and organization in assisting the IDPs. Cross border assistance which throughout the years is the primary way to access IDP communities in unstable areas should be sustained in order to assist food, health care, education and the protection of civilians in the areas controlled by armed opposition group. As IDMC suggested, greater efforts are needed to overcome funding, political and logistical constraints facing agencies supporting IDPs, both in Myanmar and from abroad.[10]
Fourth, to strengthen its role as bridge builder in solving conflict, Indonesia could offer programs and activities such as:
· Capacity building and community development to empower minorities as well as society at large in Myanmar.
· Promoting respect for human rights through education, training and monitoring; creating culture of peace through education, prejudice reduction, etc.
· Promoting good governance which include justice improvement, creation of free and fair media, and problem solving workshops where academic facilitators attempt to get conflicting parties to engage in joint analysis of the problem they face.
Finally, it should take into consideration the potential problem of IDPs both for the political and security stability in the region. The IDPs are the potential refugees that could pose increasing burden of support for neighbouring countries. Posing with this possibility, Indonesia together with other ASEAN members should persuade and push further the Myanmar government to seek any peaceful solution without denying or denigrating the humanitarian situation of its citizens as well as to guarantee their safety and dignity as human beings. It is a test case for ASEAN, to assess the cohesiveness, agility, and its pledge for the promotion of human rights in Southeast Asia post-ASEAN Charter.
IV. References
Asis, Maruja M.B., “Recent Trends in International Migration in Asia and the Pacific”, Asia-Pacific Population Journal, December 2005.
Bennett, Jon, “Forced Migration Within National Borders: the IDP Agenda”, Forced Migration Review, January-April 1998.
Castles, Stephen, “Global Perspective on Forced Migration”, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 2005.
Christie Kenneth and Denny Roy, The Politics of Human Rights in East Asia, London: Pluto Press, 2001.
Hurst, Lauren, “The Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons and the Creation of Customary International Law”, Master thesis, University of Ottawa, 2009.
ICRC, “Internally Displaced Persons and International Humanitarian Law”, Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, March 2010.
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), “Myanmar: Increasing Displacement as Fighting Resumes in the East”, report, 29 January 2010.
Mooney, Erin, “Bringing the End Into Sight for Internally Displaced Persons”, Forced Migration Review, 2007.
Peace Way Foundation, The, “IDPs in Burma”, www.burmaissues.org.
The Brookings Institution Project on Internal Displacement, Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, The Brookings Institutions, Washington, 1999.
United Nations-Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Annual Report 2009.
White, Brian et.al. (eds.), Issues in World Politics (2nd Edition), Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001.
[1] Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement was compilation of legal norms to bridge the human rights and humanitarian laws which did not accommodate IDPs. It was the works of Francis Deng, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for IDPs in 1998.
[2] Stephen Castles, “Global Perspective on Forced Migration”, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 2005.
[3] Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), “Myanmar: Increasing Displacement as Fighting Resumes in the East”, report, 29 January 2010.
[4] Ibid.
[5] The arm forces thousands of civilians to carry their supplies, food and ammunition. They have to work few days of few months without pay, under difficult conditions of disease, malnutrition, highly dangerous terrain, without or little food, and sometimes have to walk in front of soldiers in the mined areas.
[6] In 1982 a Citizenship Act had effectively removed citizenship from this group making them ineligible for basic social services, health and education.
[7] Christie Kenneth and Denny Roy, The Politics of Human Rights in East Asia, London: Pluto Press, 2001, hal. 75.
[8] Ibid, hal. 101.
[9] Principle 25 of Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement:
(1) The primary duty and responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons lies with national authorities.
(2) International humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors have the right to offer their services in support of the internally displaced. Such an offer shall not be regarded as an unfriendly act or an interference in a State's internal affairs and shall be considered in good faith. Consent thereto shall not be arbitrarily withheld, particularly when authorities concerned are unable or unwilling to provide the required humanitarian assistance. http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/pub/idp_gp/idp.html, downloaded on 2 November 2010.
[10] Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC),29 January 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment