Turning a blind eye to the Rohingya crisis
Asean fails to acknowledge the Rohingya humanitarian problem in its own backyard despite global condemnation against Myanmar.
IN his address at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept 19, UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres underlined seven threats and tests that confront the world today.
Third on his list was unresolved conflicts and systematic violations of international humanitarian law.
He zeroed in on the escalation of sectarian tensions in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, the vicious cycle of persecution and violent repression that caused over 400,000 Rohingya Muslims to flee.
In a strongly-worded address, Guterres said the authorities in Myanmar must end the military operations, allow unhindered humanitarian access and recognise the right of refugees to a safe return with dignity.
“They must also address the grievances of the Rohingya, whose status has been left unresolved for far too long,” Guterres said.
The top UN diplomat used both Rohingya and Rakhine in his address.
Now compare Guterres’ remarks with the Asean chairman’s statement issued four days later.
Asean chairman, the Philippines Foreign Secretary Alan Cayetano, in a six paragraph statement, condemned the attacks against Myanmar security forces and acts of violence against civilians. There was no mention of the Rohingya, and neither did it touch on the refugees who fled Rakhine State.
It was a feeble statement for a humanitarian crisis happening in Asean’s backyard.
And the biggest sin of all, the statement was issued without the consensus of all Asean members – a huge no-no for an institution big on consensus decision-making during its 50 years of existence.
Many could play down this Asean way of doing things. But Asean consensus means just that – any decision must have the agreement of all member states.
Malaysia, unhappy with the action of the Asean chair, decided to come out with its own statement. Unknown to many, Kuala Lumpur had warned it would disassociate itself from the Asean statement if the chair went ahead to issue it.
Malaysian officials acknowledged they were consulted on the statement and were unhappy with it because it ignored global concerns over the crisis.
“This Asean statement did not even mention the Rohingya and their plight. Secondly, the way the statement was drafted absolved the security forces of the atrocities committed. We could not agree with this.
“Malaysia believes it was better not to have a weak statement because it meant Asean failed to listen to global concerns over the real issue,” said an official.
It is perplexing that the Asean chair decided to go ahead with the statement.
It is as if the chair and other Asean members had set their mind on issuing the statement no matter how weak it was just to show the rest of the world that Asean does care.
And this was somewhat confirmed by Manila in its response to Malaysia’s move, saying while it held deep respect for the decision, it also has to respect and take into account the sentiment of other members.
The Philippines’s reaction was met with distaste from Malaysia.
“The Asean chair is there to help mediate to find a way forward. We cannot back down into issuing a statement that is not in sync with our principled stand,” said an official.
The actions of Manila, as Asean chair this year, was a departure from the very principle that guides Asean decisions. It also points to another thing. The fact that there was no mention of the word Rohingya was perhaps because Myanmar wanted it omitted.
Instead, the words used in the statement generalised the issue.
“The international community had mentioned the Rohingya, and by Asean not mentioning it, suggests that we in Asean do not recognise them,” said an official.
The episode also raised questions on the stand of Islamic countries like Brunei and Indonesia.
The chairman’s statement was not truthful when there was no consensus.
Is Malaysia isolated in its quest within Asean to bring the world’s attention to the violence against the Rohingya?
Malaysia dared disassociate itself from the statement which, at best, was a half-hearted attempt to address the crisis.
An observer pointed out that the statement also reflected Myanmar’s anti-Islam stance.
“It is a pity that Asean seemed to endorse crimes against humanity and genocide.”
What remains to be seen is whether the discontent over this issue will blow over when Asean leaders meet in the Philippines, this November.
Officials pointed out that while they may have differences, members will still sit down together because Asean is an institution that they subscribe to.
“Asean is bigger than this. There are many areas of common interest.
“For this episode, we have done our part to send a strong signal that we are a principled country and will not waver.”
Asean cannot close one eye and pray that this crisis in Myanmar will just go away. It has serious implications for stability in Asean and the wider region.