Abstract
Myanmar government’s denial of granting Rohingyas citizenship and from allowing them to enjoy full rights as other ethnics in the country has led to many issues between the Rohingya ethnic and Myanmar government and as well as among other ethnics in the Rakhine state. The clashes between two sides have resulted in vast destructions of Rohingya villages along with the death of Rohingya people, military personnel and innocent people and mass migrations of Rohingya people to neighboring countries, especially to Bangladesh. Myanmar governments have responded by taking different actions in order to solve this conflict. Remarkably, “Rakhine State Action Plan” was drafted by Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) government. However, the Rakhine State Action Plan has proven “problematic” and ineffective: problematic because it consisted of “highly problematic” elements and ineffective because the Rohingya issues have been still protracting. This paper investigated why and how this action plan failed to end the issues of Rohingya. The findings aimed to provide insightful ways to understand the causes of the failure of the policy as they would serve as assets of knowledge for academics and policy-makers. The study was conducted in qualitative approach given the intractability of the issue, so as to understand the underlying causes and perspectives of the Myanmar students on the ineffectiveness of the Action Plan. Content analysis and survey were deployed in this study. As found, the Rakhine State Action Plan did not respond to the demands of Rohingyas. The Action Plan itself consisted of problematic elements such as the policy of resettlement that set out the relocation and encampment of the internally displaced Rohingya people to unspecified rural sites in the state with no prospect of returning to their homes and the citizenship verification that required the Rohingya ethnic to register as Bangalis. However, Rohingyas wanted to gain full citizenship as Rohingya ethnic and the ethnicity to be accepted nationwide and to have their rights as other citizens.
Chapter I: Introduction
1. Background
An ethnic group, who identify themselves as Rohingya is a Muslim minority in Myanmar. Historically, Myanmar and Bangladesh were colonized by Britain. During the colonization, Britain implemented a policy to encourage the movement of migrant workers in order to increase the labor needs for rice, cultivation and profits (Abdelkader, 2017). After decolonization, the Myanmar government’s denial of granting Rohingyas citizenship and from allowing them to enjoy full rights as other ethnics have led to many issues between the Rohingya ethnic and Myanmar government and as well as among other ethnics in the Rakhine state.
There have been a number of attacks in Rakhine state that involve Myanmar military and Rohingya insurgents. The clashes between two sides have resulted in vast destructions of Rohingya villages along with the death of Rohingya people and military personnel. Consequently, thousands of them have fled to Bangladesh to escape from the crackdowns. Following these events, there were restrictions on humanitarian aids and the failure of returning displaced people back home.
The government have responded by taking actions in order to solve this conflict. “Rakhine State Action Plan” was drafted by USDP government. However, the Rakhine State Action Plan has proven “problematic” and ineffective: problematic because it consisted of “highly problematic” elements (Asia Report 2014), and ineffective because the Rohingya issue is still protracting.
2. Research Question
Why did the Rakhine State Action Plan fail to end the Rohingya issues in Myanmar?
2.1 Sub Research Question
1. What are included in the Action Plan and why is it problematic?
2. What are the flaws of the Rakhine State Action Plan that hinder the success of the policy?
3. What should be amended or further included with the existing Action Plan to bring the conflict to an end?
3. Significance of Study
The study will contribute to the existing knowledge about Rohingya issues and actions by Myanmar government. It help students, researchers, and the public to understand the events, responses, and government failure to end the conflict. Hence, the study aims to provide insightful ways of seeing the policy of Myanmar government in dealing with the ethnic issues. Moreover, policy recommendations will serve as assets of knowledge for academics and policy-makers.
4. Research Methodology
4.1 Study design
The research was conducted in qualitative approach given the intractability of the issue, so as to understand the underlying causes and perspectives of the Myanmar students on the ineffectiveness of the Action Plan. Content analysis and survey method were used in this study.
4.2 Data Type and Data Collection
On the account of content analysis, secondary data was used predominantly. Existing literatures including published articles, news, journals, official documents, and reports from credible and reliable sources on the internet were derived from specific sources from both national archives and international institutions and digital libraries such as Irrawaddy news, Rakhine News Agency, Asia report, Human Rights Watch, United Nations, International Crisis Group, Jstor and other research institutions. Therefore, document and internet research were abundantly used as secondary data collection method. In regards to the survey, primary data was drawn from 14 participants, all of whom are Myanmar undergraduate students majoring in social science. In respect to the survey, it was designed to explore the perspectives of the respondents on Rohingya issues the Rakhine State Action Plan and recommendations for government policy.
5. Scope and Limitation
This study is limited to the investigation on the Rakhine State Action Plan with the timeframe scoped to the period of USDP administration between 2011 and 2016. This investigation focuses only on two aspects of the Rakhine State Action Plan: Permanent Settlement and Citizenship Assessment. However, given time constraint, only 20 online surveys were sent out. 14 of the 20 population submitted the survey. Although the 14 participants could not represent all Myanmar, their contribution gave this study insightful understanding of Myanmar people think about the given issues.
Chapter II: Literature Review
Since the Rohingya crisis involve human rights violation, many scholars have conducted many studies in regards to the issue. Most of the existing studies provide insightful understanding about the root causes of the conflict and the motives of the government’s citizenship law.
One study precisely explains the roots of the conflict based on the term Rohingya that is subjectively unrecognized by government of the state. This is seen as the wrongdoing of the government who politicizes the issue and mistreats the population of Rohingya. The Amnesty International 2017 report stressed about the segregation issue and suggested the policy recommendation that the international actors shall condemn the act of the government publicly, and provide aid and education to the people in the Rakhine State. (Caged Without A Roof: Apartheid in Myanmar's Rakhine State, 2017).
David Dapice (2017) from Harvard University has produced a study report about the Rakhine State crisis. His brought two Myanmar focused groups to Indonesia in order to understand about military matter in the similar issue in 2015 and another group to Ache to study about how the bloody ethnic conflict was ended. Later, the focused groups provided several peace resolutions; granting citizenship, residency and mobility in Rakhine, restricting foreign illegal fishing in the coast of Rakhine to help Rakhine fishermen, and finding more foreign aid and extend the health care and education in Rakhine. Dapice also suggested there shall be a new citizenship policy that includes Rohingya in and the representative of Muslims in Rakhine who can speak for their interest with the government.
Regarding to the 2012 Rakhine State Action Plan, it was believed as the government policy created in response to the domestic and international pressure over the human right abuse act and the discriminatory citizenship policy of the government. President Thein Sien pushed the plan due to three main objectives; maintaining peace and stability in Rakhine State, lessening the concern of the Buddhist nationalist in Rakhine, and responding to the concern of the international donors. Besides, this was a show about the leadership willingness of the government during the ASEAN Regional Forum in Myanmar which secretary of state John Kerry presented as well.
Chapter III: Myanmar Students’ Perspectives on Rohingya Issues
Many Rakhine people share a perspective that “Rakhine State is only for the Rakhine people”. The Rakhine see Rohingya as Muslim Bengalis as migrants from Bangladesh eyeing for economic opportunities and works in agricultural sector in Myanmar. Moreover, Rakhine worry that Rohingyas control their land and economy, demanding for a separate state (Rakhine Inquiry Commission, 2013). This led to strong inter-communal sentiment against Rohingya. In this section, three aspects of focuses from Myanmar students are elaborated.
1. Perspectives on Rohingya Issues
All of the respondents share similar perceptions toward Rohingya people or Bengali. They believe that Rohingya issues are the issues of ethnic identity, territory, culture, religion, illegal immigration and terrorism. Based on the result of the survey, majority of the respondents shares belief that citizenship official status of ethnic identity, recognition as an ethnic group of Myanmar, Myanmar nationality and civil rights are among what Rohingya people want from Myanmar government. One respondent states that stopping the violation of human rights is what Rohingya want. Moreover, the respondents also shared similar tone on the demand for the territory by the Rohingyas.
2. Perspectives on Actions under USDP Government
When asked about actions taken by Myanmar government under USDP administration, not all respondents answered. Granting white card - temporary Resident Card, permitting NGOs to work on the issues, and putting military control over the region are among actions what the respondents saw during USDP government. There are different views among the respondent toward the practical solution to end the conflict by allowing NGOs to work and giving white card to Rohingya people. Others state that separation and recognition of Rohingya people are also not practical in solving this problem.
3. Perspectives on Government Policy
Therefore, they suggest a number of recommendations to be implemented. Most of the respondents suggest two most important actors to solve the problem: government and international community. Some mention about citizenship granting should be a solution. This is not the only action to be taken however; others following steps are also considered by many of the respondents. These include the stop of using force from both sides, establishment related commissions, provision of fundamental rights to Rohingya people, reconciliation efforts and state security. Moreover, it is also suggested that government and international community should work hand in hand with each other, while at the same time international community should study and understand more about the situations by not just listening to a particular side, especially media.
Chapter IV: Rakhine State Action Plan
1. What Rohingyas Demand
Historically, Rohingya demanded to establish self-administrative area under their control in the northern part of the Rakhine state (Rakhine Inquiry Commission, 2013). After the World War II, Muslim mujahidin rebellion fought for the right of the population to live as full citizens in an autonomous Muslim area in the north of the Rakhine state. The main objectives of Rohingyas leaders was to gain their rights including full citizenship and a legitimate ethnic group of Myanmar. They promoted Rohingya identity to be one of the ethnic group of Myanmar so that they can get full citizenship by birth (International Crisis Group, 2014). For the militants or extremists, they aim to create Muslim autonomous area in the northern Rakhine. Furthermore, they demand human rights, civil rights, repatriation, resettlement, reconstruction and economic restructuring.
The refugee Rohingyas want to return home safely with dignity, freely decide their political status and to pursue economic, social and cultural development without any restriction (Birsel, 2017). They desire for basic rights such as right to participate in the political process, right to education, right to do business freely, freedom of movement and freedom of expression. Therefore, as stateless Rohingyas, being recognized as citizens of a country to enjoy human rights and civil rights in the long term is fundamental for them.
2. Rakhine State Action Plan and Its Problematic Elements
In light of the violent outbreak in 2012, the Rakhine action plan was established under President Thein Sien. Followed by the April 2013 recommendations of Rakhine Investigative Commission, the Rakhine Action Plan was designed to eradicate the problem with 6 core elements including Security, Stability, and Rules of Law; Rehabilitation and Reconstruction; Permanent resettlement; Citizenship assessment of Bengalis; Socio-economic development; and Peaceful coexistence. Respectively, in regards to Security, Stability and Rule of Law, law enforcement was placed under the spotlight to ensure the safety and security of Myanmar. It prevented illegal aliens from entering the country and practice the Myanmar constitution, Refugee law, Humanitarian principle and International Human Right Law in order to monitor civil society organizations. Second, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction emphasized on resettling and providing shelter and basic needs for displaced persons in Myanmar. Furthermore, it added on improving telecommunications facilities for displaced persons as well as coordinating and cooperating with non-profit organizations. Third, the Permanent settlement was being described on conducting the plan and assessment for displaced communities, building road, providing socio-economic support to resettled communities, and providing livelihood equipment for displaced people. Fourth, it emphasized on the Citizenship assessment of Bengalis and the process of how to get that citizenship. It required Rohingyas to register as Bengalis in Rakhine State, and set norm and criteria for citizenship assessment. It further included the addressing of illegal aliens and taking actions against illegal immigration in both present time and future time. Fifth, for the Socio-economic developmental plan, the government planned to improve farm productivity and manage fishery stock and other resources in sustainable ways. Moreover, the government also claimed to develop tourism sector and preserve the environment and culture in Rakhine state. In addition, the government believed that the action plan can expand and promote livelihood actions such as improve education system, health care system, electricity, promote trade and investment, and advance telecommunications and IT network, and also prevent natural disasters. Lastly, regarding Peaceful coexistence, the government would ensure all religious schools and qualification of teachers to meet the standard and rules in Rakhine state. Moreover, it further established the system that would promote peace throughout Myanmar and prevents or reduces sectarian conflict (Rakhine State Action Plan, 2014).
Introduced in 2013, the Rakhine Action Plan was to serve as a blueprint for development and reconstruction after the conflict. However, this particular policy failed to see any light of success given the protracted nature of the conflict and the underlying intention of the government in the Action Plan that worsen the situation. Aforementioned, the failure of the policy has a lot to do with the Action plan itself. Each elements of the Action plan entrenched discriminatory policies and violation of basic rights, both of which turned development and reconstruction to segregation and statelessness (Bookbinder, 2014). One instance is the third section of the plan on “Permanent Resettlement” that set out the relocation and encampment of the internally displaced Rohingya people to unspecified rural sites in the state with no prospect of returning to their homes. This policy constitutes a violation of freedom of movement and other basic rights, in a sense that putting the Rohingyas in permanent resettlement zones in isolated rural camps would further isolate and marginalize the Rohingya and tighten their access to basic needs, thus making more dependent on foreign assistance (Human Right Watch, 2014). Another major problem embeds in the fourth section of the plan on citizenship assessment that built on the discriminatory 1982 Citizenship law, which required the Rohingya to be registered as “Bengalis”, a term heavily rejected by the Rohingyas (Ferrie, 2014). As much as nationalism was used as an important political tool to foster self-determination and keep nation-state cohesive, ethnicism also functioned in similar fashion. Hence, it was unlikely that the Rohingyas would renounce their claim to Rohingya identity. Consequently, in the action plan, the government stipulated the lawful enforcement for the Rohingyas who refused to give up their ethnic identity or those that were deemed ineligible for citizenship, therefore punishing them under Myanmar laws and procedures such as indefinite detention and deportation (Bookbinder, 2014). In a nutshell, the Rakhine action plan which was drafted in secrecy portrays the actual intention of the government to drive Rohingya population stateless and segregation.
Chapter V: Discussion and Policy Recommendation
The Rakhine Action Plan did not respond to the demands of Rohingyas. The Action Plan itself consisted of problematic elements such as the policy of resettlement of displace Rongyas, the citizenship verification that required Rohingya ethnic to register as Bangalis. As mentioned above, Rohingyas wanted to gain full citizenship as Rohingya ethnic and the ethnicity to be accepted nationwide and to have their rights as other citizens. As found, the reason why the Action Plan failed to address the Rohingya issues was because of its elements contain controversies – resettlement and citizenship verification – that did not respond to the demands of Rohingya people and therefore it was not favored by them.
Having analyzed the elements of the Rakhine State Action Plan and with the voices of Myanmar people, this section is to propose the following recommendations.
To solve the citizenship issue, with existing policy on the citizen verification, the verification process should be put to further work in order to include the complaint procedure so that the government can hear the concerns of the Rohingya. The verification should distinguish between who deserves citizenship status and who is an economic migrant. In addition, the Rohingya should be given full rights and freedoms regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or citizenship status. The government should review or amend its citizenship law by taking the interests of the Rohingya into consideration while at the same time strengthening law on border control to prevent illegal migrants and extremist groups from entering the country. This will help ensure the security of the local people. Dealing with the rehabilitation and reconstruction issues, the government should create security force to ensure the safety of the returnees from the refugee camp to the place prepared by the government and facilitate the return process. Concerning the issue of violation of rule of law by restriction of movement in the closed camps, the government should conduct independent and impartial investigation and bring the one who violated the law to be held accountable for their action. Regarding the restriction to the socio-economic development, the government should take into account and give priority to the needs of all local communities in Rakhine. Tackling the issue of the unequal economic opportunities and prosperity between the Rakhine and the Rohingya, the government should encourage the companies operating or investing in Rakhine, by giving some incentives such as reducing taxes, to hire more people from Rakhine people. The international community should take more actions by cooperating with the government and providing more aid instead of condemning.
Chapter VI: Conclusion
In response to the ethnic marginalization and abuse that has been going on for decades, the USDP government initiated an action plan to address the issue. However, it failed to produce any fruitful result. Instead, it took a turn for the worse. To a great extent, the Rakhine action plan, which was drafted in secrecy, was the main problem itself; in a sense that it composed of elements designed to drive the Rohingya people stateless. Therefore, how can the problems be solved when the problem-solving mechanism is the problem.
References:
Abdelkader, E. (2017, October). The conversation. Retrieved from Theconversation.com: https://theconversation.com/the-history-of-the-persecution-of-myanmars-rohingya-84040
Albert, E. (2017, December 7). Council of Foreign Relations . Retrieved from cfr: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/rohingya-crisis
Birsel.R. (2017, October 7). Rohingya insurgents open to peace but Myanmar ceasefire ending. Retrieved from Reuters World News: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/rohingya-insurgents-open-to-peace-but-myanmar-ceasefire-ending-idUSKBN1CC05C
Bookbinder, A. (2014, October 3). Rakhine Action Plan a ‘blueprint for segregation and statelessness’. Retrieved from DVB: http://www.dvb.no/news/rakhine-action-plan-a-blueprint-for-segregation-and-statelessness-burma-myanmar/44705
Burma: Government Plan Would Segregate Rohingya, Force Resettlement, Discriminatory Citizenship Creates Dangers. (2014, October 3). Retrieved from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/03/burma-government-plan-would-segregate-rohingya
Caged Without A Roof: Apartheid in Myanmar's Rakhine State. (2017). Retrieved from Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/11/myanmar-apartheid-in-rakhine-state/
Rakhine State Action Plan. (2014, October 27). Retrieved from: http://www.maungzarni.net/2014/10/rakhine-action-plan.html?m=1.
Dapice, D. (2017, May). Rakhine State: Dangers and Opportunities. Retrieved from Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation: https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/myanmar-politics-rakhine-state
European Commission. (2017). The Rohingya crisis. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/rohingya_en.pdf
Ferrie, J. (2014, October 3). Rights groups condemn Myanmar's Rohingya plan. Retrieved from
Reuters: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-myanmar-rohingya/rights-groups-condemn-myanmars-rohingya-plan-idUKKCN0HS0BT20141003
FIDH and ALTSEAN-Burma. (2016, October 26). Still oppressed: Rohingya policies and restrictions under Myanmar's new government. Retrieved from: https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/20161025_myanmar_rohingya_br_en-4.pdf.
Gamez, K. R. (2017). EXAMINING THE ASEAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (AICHR): THE CASE STUDY OF THE ROHINGYA CRISIS. Tilburg University, International and European Law.
International Crisis Group. (2014, October 22). Myanmar: The Politics of Rakhine State. Asia Report N°261 Retrieved from: https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/myanmar-politics-rakhine-state
Mathieson, D. S. (2016, January 6). The Electoral Aftermath in Rakhine State. Retrieved from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/06/electoral-aftermath-rakhine-state-0.
Open Security (2017). The Rohingya crisis of June 2012: a survivor's testimony. Retrieved from: https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/hamid-emma-crichton/rohingya-crisis-of-june-2012-survivors-testimony
Rakhine Inquiry Commission. (2013, July 8). Final Report of Inquiry Commission on Sectarian Violence in Rakhine State. Retrieved from: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs15/Rakhine_Commission_Report-en-red.pdf
Refugees International. (2017, July 11). A Continuing Humanitarian Tragedy: Ongoing Abuses and Oppression against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Retrieved from: https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/continuing-humanitarian-tragedy-ongoing-abuses-and-oppression-against-rohingya
Rieffel, L. (2017, September 13). No simple solution to the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/09/13/no-simple-solution-to-the-rohingya-crisis-in-myanmar/.
APPENDIX
Consent Form
We are a group of students studying at Department of International Studies at Royal University of Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Currently we are conducting a research on the topic “Valuating of Rakhine State Action Plan”. Specifically we are trying to explore the berries that prevented the Action Plan from solving Rohingya ethnic issue. With this occasion, we are investigating on two levels: the elements of the Action Plan and actual issues to be addressed.
As latter focuses on the actual issues, it is necessary to hear the local voices. Therefore, we are requesting you to be our voluntary participants for our investigation. Our findings will serve as beneficial knowledge regarding the ethnic conflict and policies dealing with such issue. It is also important for policy-makers to understand better about the issue.
It is important to note that your identity will be most CONFIDENTIAL and will not be revealed at any cost without your consensus.
By selecting “NEXT”, you voluntarily agree to be our participant without any internal or external force, and you also agree to provide us with correct answer based on your point of view.
Should you have any inquiries, feel free to contact us. We can be reached via uk.dararath@gmail.com.
Questionnaire: Valuating of Rakhine State Action Plan
I. Brief Background
₋ Age:
₋ Year of school:
₋ University name:
₋ Email (optional; if you give, we will send our research as soft copy once it is done):
II. Rohingya Issues: We are asking your thoughts. So you do not have to search internet to fill it; just say what you know. You can write in either English or Burmese language.
- Can you briefly talk about the causes of Rohinya issue?
- Based on your opinion, please kindly tell us about what Rohinya people want from Myanmar government?
III. Actions under USDP Government: Just say what you know. You can write in either English or Burmese language.
- Under USDP regime, what did you see from USDP government do to solve the Rohingya issue? Please list down all actions by USDP government that you know (Just say what you know)
Authors:
Uk Dararath
Choun Sotheavuth
Hour Sopheana
Lam Kimchheng
Lim Chhay Heng
Su Myat Wai Hlaing
Sinn Van Dara
