See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333784340

Dissertation:SGIA40560 The Plight of the Rohingya Refugees: A Critical

assessment of the Role of the states of Myanmar and Bangladesh and the
International Community

Thesis · September 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11466.21447

CITATIONS
READS
0
523

5 authors, including:

Sodip Roy
Bangladesh Open University
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Plight of the Rohingya Refugees: A Critical assessment of the Role of the states of Myanmar and Bangladesh and the International Community View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sodip Roy on 14 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Dissertation:SGIA40560

The Plight of the Rohingya Refugees: A Critical assessment

of the Role of the states of Myanmar and Bangladesh and the
International Community

Rohingya Refugee Camp, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh: Photo- Reuters/Mohammad Ponir Hossain.

Z0987797

Name of supervisor: Dr. Elisabeth Kirtsoglu

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the
degree of MSc Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding

Durham University
Word count: 14,574.
6 September 2018.

1
Table of Contents

List of Tables

Acknowledgement

List of Acronyms

Chapter One: Introduction 6

1.1 Research Statement 6

1.2 Research Focus 9

1.3 Significance of the Study 11

1.4 Research method 13

1.5 Chapter outline 17

Chapter Two: The Plight of Rohingya Refugee in Bangladesh 19

2.1 The Arduous conditions of the Refugees 19

2.2 The Pressures on the Bangladeshi state Infrastructure 22

Chapter Three: The Role of the main actors in the Rohingya 24

crisis: Myanmar, Bangladesh and the International
Community

3.1 Role of Myanmar as the cause of the Rohingya refugee crisis 26

3.2 Role of Bangladesh as the receiving country of the Rohingya 34

refugees

3.3 Role of International Community in managing the Rohingya 40

refugee crisis
Chapter Four: The Analysis of the Plight of Rohingya: People 46
Caught Up in Nation Building

4.1 Territory-Nation-Sovereignty: The Dynamics of Nation- 46

building

4.2 The International Refugee regime 53

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendation 61

Bibliography 65

List of Tables

Number of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh 21

 Acknowledgement

It is my pleasure to acknowledge the Commonwealth Scholarship

Commission and Durham University for funding this MSc program here in

the UK. I like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor Dr.

Elisabeth Kirtsoglu who has rendered her immense support and guidance to

accomplish this daunting task.

To this end, I am also grateful to my academic advisor Dr. Lena S.

Opfermann for her valuable suggestions and guidance during the entire

program as well as to this dissertation.

Finally, the biggest thanks goes for my wife Annya Kar. She has incessantly

motivated me like a guide, a friend to keep me and my work in track.

List of Acronyms

AI Amnesty International

ARSA Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nation

CHT Chittagong Hill Tracts

EU European Union

GoB Government of Bangladesh

GoM Government of Myanmar

HRW Human Rights Watch

IC International Community

ICC International Criminal Court

IRR International Refugee Regime

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

R2P Responsibility to Protect

RSO Rohingya Solidarity Organisation

SLORC State and Law Order Restoration Council

UN United Nations

UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugee

UMN Unregistered Myanmar National

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNSC United Nations Security Council

 Chapter One: Introduction

“States make refugee, but refugee discourse also makes state”

(N. Soguk 1999: 64-65 cited in Ron 2000:140)

1.1 Research Statement

Refugeeness is deeply related with state making and remaking in every

corner of the world, which normally proceeds through political conflicts,

war and violence. In this regard, a calculation found that Southeast Asia is a

very conflictual region and specifically estimated that Burma/Myanmar1 has

faced 236 conflict years or 40% of conflict in the region (Steinberg 2010:

12). Recently, state run persecution has crossed the all-time limits of crisis

in Myanmar and generated million of Rohingya refugees. They are the

minority Muslim ethnic groups from Northern Rakhine state of Myanmar

(Cheung 2011:52). Now, Bangladesh is their temporary shelter under the

UNHCR humanitarian actions. However, Bangladesh has been the same

experience of ten million refugees who took refuge in India in 1971, who

returned to the newly independent nation-state. Though it has suffered from

human rights violations her liberation war, it does not provide minimum

facilities for the one million Rohingya refugees now in Bangladesh. The

International community is also playing its role according to readymade

strategies and interests like in any other forced migration (Zolberg et al.

1989:176).

1. Burma/Myanmar – Myanmar is the official name of present day Burma since

1989. But the existing literatures also use Burma. Both of the names have been
used here to refer to the same country.
Current levels of forced migration have become an alarming world problem,

as refugees constitute the highest number of forcibly displaced persons

standing at 25.4 million (UNHCR 2018:2). And if that number is counted

for the formation of a state, it will be the largest new country in the 21st

century (Miliband 2017:4). The extent of the refugee crisis can be fully

understood in the statement ‘we live in the world of refugee’ (Ager 1999:47;

Bazirake 2017). These people flee from their country of origin on many

grounds but predominantly state and institutional breakdown, persecution,

poverty, climate change and natural disaster (Hasen 2015:3).

An Uppsala Conflict Database estimates that there were 50 intrastate wars

in 2015, which is almost double since the post-cold war period (UCDP

2015). In this regard, refugees are the outcome of volatile political

condition, result of asymmetrical power relation between majority-minority,

‘us’ and ‘them’ or center-periphery discrimination grounded on race,

religion or demography of a certain state (Schmeidl 1997:288). It breaks

down the ‘national order of things’ and affects regional and international

stability as well (Malkki 1992:37). Refugees are the catastrophe of human

beings, is identified as humanitarian crisis, which seeks concerted actions of

states and non-state actors locally and globally. However, states are more

responsible for the creation of refugeehood rather than the international

system as most people live in a state - the nation-state, before they are

identified as stateless or refugees in the international refugee system (Keely

1996:1052). States generally provide all essential political and human rights

according to the domestic and international laws and charters, however it

depends on the structure and operation of the state. The specific territory of

a state may comprise of heterogeneous or homogeneous community but

international treaties forces the community to be a nation. It is an entity of

territory-nation-sovereignty. As Agamben (1955:115) asserts, some laws

adopted in France, Belgium, Italy in the beginning of twentieth century and

the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 made a visible impression to this relation by

dividing the member of a state’s into ‘people and citizen’. Currently

citizenship and the nationality are considered as the sole criteria of having

rights of inhabitants, impossible only as a human being. They are governed

by sovereign power - originated from the community but sovereign gains

the legitimacy to rule them, arranges them in order and defines the inclusion

and exclusion. Behavior and attitude of the state towards the members are

determined by the relationship between constitutive power and sovereign

power or vice-versa (Theodorakis 2014: 40).

However, availability of natural resources and the nature of the distribution

of resources are deeply connected with refugeeness. Moreover, different

international rules, regulations and conventions of transnational bodies like

UN, EU and other financial organizations affect the nature of the state

immensely. Most of the developing countries that are in political and

economic transition cannot tune with these complex intra and inter-state

relations. Frequent policy implication from international system, affect the

statecraft like a square peg in round hole. In this consequence, political

conflict is must and ultimately cause forced displacement - the refugees to a

great extent (Schmeidl 2000, 152: Davenport, Moore, and Poe 2003: 34).
The management of the ‘international refugee regime’ focuses on theissue

of human rights of the affected people in ‘humanitarian and social’ actions

but do not apply political solutions. (Zolberg et al 1992:258, Ager 1999: 47,

Agamben 1995:115). This leads ultimately to a situation where neither state

nor non-state actors engage themselves decisively towards the long-term

solution of the crisis. Developed countries, in particular, are not sharing the

equal burden and responsibility of protection of global refugee, which

ultimately impose some state-centered management (Aleinikoff 1992:188).

Refugees in every crisis are too powerless to bring forth any solution for

themselves beyond the existing state and international refugee system.

However, postmodern thinker have been proposing different ideas to solve

the crisis based on post-national and transnational discourses.

1.2 Research Focus

This study focuses on the role of state and international community to the

influx of Rohingya refugees2 in Bangladesh, which is four times bigger in

numbers than the previous one that took place in 2012. The study will assess

their role based on very principle of state the ‘territory-nation-sovereignty’

and the international refugee regime perspective for IC. The crisis first

began in 1978, long time after the creation of Burmese pluralistic state

where Rohingya people could enjoy their political and human rights. But

now they are outsiders and stateless persons according to the 1982

Citizenship Law of Myanmar and have been fleeing to Bangladesh to save

their lives from state-run persecution.

2. Rohingya refugee – It refers to mostly Rohingya Muslim people from Rakhine state
of Mynmar (Leider 2014:208). The same people are registered in Bangladesh as
Undocumented Myanmar Nationals (UMNs). According to UNHCR definition, they
are refugee and I am following the UNHCR definition.
Bangladesh also echoes with other state system, which declares them as

‘outsiders and illegal in Bangladesh and denies its responsibility to these

people. Moreover, both of these states are identifying Rohingya people as

their burden, security threat, causes of deterioration of law and order,

ultimately the sovereignty of the state. A large number of Rohingya

Muslims have been trying to settle in Thailand and Malaysia since the

beginning of the crisis, they are not fully in encampment and can avail to

some of their human rights under those countries’ domestic laws. On the

other hand, International refugee system is considering the crisis as

humanitarian catastrophe and danger for the international community.

Whatever this persecution is called genocide (Zami and Cowley 2014: 681),

ethnic cleansing (UNHHR 2017), or Crime against humanity (HRW, 2013),

that may have some legal consideration but the consequences of Rohingya

people indicate the failure of state and other non-state actors nationally and

internationally.

Different reports and studies have interpreted the causes, consequences and

the remedies of this problem in historical, ethnographic, structural, cultural,

and political and security perspectives. International community has been

engaging different strategies and instruments on multiple levels:

humanitarian, development, diplomatic and social since 1978, but the

Rohingya problem persists. Consequently, refugee scholars are critical of

the present system and argue for different types of solutions and

reformations of the State as well as international refugee regime. They have

come up with different positions of man in state and global system, among
them the post national and transnational ideas attempt to rebuild the

relationship between state and nationals whereas the more radical position is

argued by Agamben (1995:114) suggesting changes in the very idea of

polity and nationalism or the total abolition of nation-state system. In this

connection, this study will

1. critically review the role, capacities, constraints, strategies of

Myanmar and Bangladesh as major state actors

2. engage in deep analysis of the role of international state and refugee

system, with a focus on their principles, interest, legal frameworks

and enforcement capacity

3. provide a rethink in the existing state and international refugee

system whether these are capable to end the Rohingya refugee or

global refugee crisis or whether the crises require new entities or

strategies to overcome.

1.3 Significance of the Study

The Rohingya people have been forcibly uprooted from their homestead

since 1978, continuing in the latest and most devastating plight in August

2017in Bangladesh. In a recent joint statement of UNHCR, it reiterates the

precarious condition of the refugees in Bangladesh with a new arrivals

every day and no improvement of the conditions in Myanmar for their

repatriation, while Bangladesh does not want and is incapable to meet the

demands of the millions of refugees (UNHCR 2018). UN Joint Response

Plan is urging more humanitarian help which indicates the protracted

refugeehood of Rohingya Muslim ethnic group. It seems humanitarian

assistance remains the only solution of this crisis for now, which underpins

the asylum right of refugees, and safety and protection of the refugee in

Bangladesh. However, the UN and international refugee regime are aiming

for repatriation. But the situation is not suitable for voluntary and dignitary

return in Myanmar as the state there refuses to accept them and is still

persecuting them. As to the real question of Myanmar committing a crime

against humanity or genocide, this is less discussed, and this practice seems

to apply to other refugee crises with the consequence of never finding a

permanent solution or eradicating the root causes of such crises.

Hence, this study attempted to interpret some of these issues: the why and

how State system creates refugees and the involvement of the international

community, specifically why the international system thinks about the

security and sovereignty of the states before the human rights of the

refugees. In brief, the study looks into the role of the State in protecting its

people as well as the application of early warning, human rights advocacies,

humanitarian actions and strategies for durable solutions from international

system with a focus on Rohingya refugee crisis. It tries to answer why and

how the state parties and the international community favor some of the

strategies and reject others to treat refugees.

To this purpose, the study engages legal and political framework of the

states, different policies, laws and conventions in international system for

analysis. Though this study does not employ empirical research for brand

new knowledge, it is believed that this analysis will enrich academics,

political leaders, policy makers and humanitarian workers to justify their

position in the existing system, and to play their role for a holistic approach.

The motivation for rethinking, revisiting the crisis, policies, actions and

strategies employed, can led the aforesaid parties towards a rational and

vibrant legal and political outcome for the victims in future. More

specifically, this study aims to generate and to indicate some grounds for

further research and ‘quality of thought’ about existing state and refugee

system or required transition of solution to refugee crisis in the world

(Colson 1989:4).

1.4 Research Method

Refugee crisis evolves with the State itself and the multifaceted equations of

the international community - especially the international refugee regime,

which comes forward with many instruments, strategies and readymade

solutions. Similar to all refugee crises, Rohingya refugee crisis is also a long

historical problem, which has engaged many actors from state parties,

academia, policymakers, actions groups and the international humanitarian

and legal experts. They have already identified different causes,

consequences, positions and roles of different actors in their studies and

reports. It is possible to make a critical assessment of the role of State and

international community by consulting these resources. It is an effort to link

past thoughts and present conditions of refugee in the international state

system. Thus, the study is based on a qualitative approach based on

secondary data.
The literature-consulted falls into two categories - the present development

of state system and its relations with refugee, and the performances of

international refugee regime. Thus, the formation, structure and power

relation of a state especially Myanmar and Bangladesh, have been explored

based on their national archives, histories and empirical researches. It has

sorted out the implications of international policies to determine the nature

and reactions of these states to refugee crises. In this regard, UN reports,

news article, government policies and strategy papers, action reports of

humanitarian and human rights organizations, academic studies and

international legal frameworks for protection and management of refugees

are analyzed to link the present refugees’ status in Bangladesh. So how the

international refugee system is based on, how it works in general and how it

has been working about Rohingya crisis, have been examined through

document analysis. Some of the latest data are also collected from web

searching. The UN definitions have been considered for the term

like refugee, stateless persons, ‘crime against humanity’ for better

understanding of international system in this regard. For international

refugee regime, it refers to the UN Refugee Convention 1951 to the latest

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) laws. However, this study related some

definitions are cited in the following:

Refugee

A refugee who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of

race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or

political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or,
owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that

country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of

his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing

to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. (UN Refugee Convention 1951:

Article A (2)).

Ethnic Cleansing

‘Ethnic cleansing’ is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious

group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian

population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic

areas. (UNSC: S/1994/674:33)

Crimes Against Humanity

According to Rome Statute -

1. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any

of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or

systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with

knowledge of the attack:

1. Murder;

2. Extermination;

3. Enslavement;

4. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

5. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty

in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

 6. Torture;

7. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced

pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual

violence of comparable gravity;

8. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on

political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as

defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally

recognized as impermissible under international law, in

connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any

crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

9. Enforced disappearance of persons;

10. The crime of apartheid;

11. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally

causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental

or physical health. (Rome Statute Article 7).

Stateless person

The 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Person determines ‘Stateless

person’ as someone ‘who is not considered as a national by any State under

operation of its law.’ (UNHCR 2014: Article 1).

In this case like in assessment study, it is better to collect primary data from

field through interview with the relevant policy makers and stakeholders, it

has not been possible here to do so because of lack of time and funding,

focusing on normative entity like state and international refugee system.

However, it has been striven to overcome the limitation through cross

checking the data from various sources.

1.5 Chapter outline

The study moves forward total in five chapters. Chapter one draws a picture

of global trends of forced displacement and refugee crisis and in what

condition people flee from their state and homestead towards in

uncertainties. This introductory part also demonstrates the importance of the

study and determines the benefits of the study. Most importantly there is a

justification of the study techniques why the case has been selected and the

data explored from secondary sources.

The second chapter is dedicated for to describe the present status of

Rohingya refugees in the encampment in Bangladesh. It simply narrates the

conditions of refugees in a humanitarian apparatus.

Chapter three delineates the role of state parties as well as the international

refugee system. It has focused in the orders that how the state has been

creating the ‘Others’ or ‘Outsiders’ in case of Rohingya people and the

international refugee policyto the crisis. There is an emphasis on their logic

of exclusionary policies and lack of responsibility to protect these unwanted

people in certain territories. The relevant background is depicted for

comprehension of the facts for analysis in the subsequent chapter.

The next chapter critically analyses the role of the state system and

international community both in normative and legal frameworks of the

entities. It provides a view about the connections between formation and

operation of state system and generation of refugees. And how the state and
international refugee regime prioritizes their interest and existence instead

of human rights.

The last and fifth chapter concludes the critical analysis suggesting some

reformation of state as a trinity of territory-nation-sovereignty and

international refugee regime as well as a thinking of new strategies or

entities for solution of the crisis.

Chapter Two: The Plight of the Rohingya

Refugee in Bangladesh

This chapter sheds a light on both the unacceptable human conditions that

the Rohingya refugees have been living under, whilst showing the immense

pressures on the Bangladeshis state to accommodate them.

2.1 The Arduous Conditions of the Refugees

Refugee is a third world country discourse and currently 85% of the total

world refugees live in the third world countries (UNHCR 2018: 2). These

countries have been countering challenges of economic and political

transition for a long time and they have neither capacity nor the willingness

to accommodate the refugees in minimum human conditions. Consequently,

the refugees have to suffer from immense crisis of lack of basic needs and to

face abuse every day. Rohingya Muslims are the most vulnerable ethnic

group in the world who used to live in the Rakhine state of Myanmar -

bordering with southeastern part of Bangladesh (Ahsan Ullah 2016:285,

Shah 2017:188). Repeated persecution against this ethnic minority group

has generated 700,000 Rohingya refugees and driven them away to

Bangladesh in 2017. During the ‘clearing operation’, Tatmadow - the

Myanmar military has destroyed 300 villages of Rakhine state between

August - September 2017 with a loss of about 10,000 lives ( HRW 2017,

MSF 2018:5). Tatmadow claims that the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army
has attacked 30 police posts on 25 August 2017 and they retaliate to secure

the region from terrorists coming from outside.

Shortly after independence, Bangladesh received 200,000 similarly forcibly

displaced Rohingya in 1978. The influx had a great impact on state building

and nation-building process of Bangladesh as well as it was difficult for the

then war-ravaged country to host this huge number of refugees. Most of

them were repatriated at that time under a bilateral agreement between

Bangladesh and Myanmar. But Rohingya people once again ran away from

Myanmar in 1988 because of a security operation of the military junta.

UNHCR mediated ‘voluntary’ repatriation in 1992 though Rohingya were

forced indirectly to return in Myanmar (Khan 1994: 165). There were

30,000 refugee left in the different camps in Bangladesh and more Rohingya

refugee continued to flee Myanmar for Bangladesh. The military regime

adopted many exclusionary policies giving immense power and rescues to

the military. Additionally, the present Constitution and the contested

Citizenship Law (1982) do not reflect any international standards. It

categorized people of the territory into four classes of citizen as citizens,

associate citizens, naturalized citizen and the foreigners or non-citizen

(Kyaw 2015:55). Citizenship law is based on government’s recognized 135

‘national race’, in which Rohingya Muslim are not an ethnic group of

Myanmar (Cheesman 2017:470). Otherethnic groups were also marginalized

in state representation and resources. Military regime started western style

political liberalization in 2011, but continues the same discriminatory ‘one

nation one religion one ethnicity’ policy for nation- building programs in

the multi-ethnic state. International community lifted

the bans and sanctions to support the transition to democracy and ignored

the ethnic violence as a dividend for nation building.

More than 250,000 Rohingya Muslim were evicted again from their homes

in 2012 and fled to Bangladesh. Resultantly, Bangladesh is now hosting

more than a million Rohingya refugees in total, and the numbers keep

increasing daily. There are two old camps in the sub districts of Cox’s bazar

and a new makeshift have sprung over rapidly in the adjacent areas ( BBC

2018). GoB has registered them as Undocumented Myanmar Nationals, not

as refugees and they live on humanitarian provisions. UNHCR, International

Organization for Migration, Red Cross, Save the Children, Brac and some

other national and international organizations have been conducting the

humanitarian assistance since 1992 in the region.

Table 2.1: Number of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh

Population Prior Total Population

to August Influx as on Jan 2018
Makeshift Settlement / Refugee Camps
Kutupalong- Balukhali Expansion Site1 99,705 584,854
Kutupalong RC 13,901 23,188
Leda MS 14,240 9,318
Nayapara RC 19,230 22,793
Camp 14 (Hakimpara) 140 32,073
Camp 13 (Thangkhali) 100 43,788
Unchiprang - 19,502
Camp 15 (Jamtoli) 72 50,500
Camp 16 (Bagghona/Potibonia) 50 22,047
Chakmarkul - 13,373
Grand Total 147,438 821,436
Cox's Bazar Sadar 12,485 7,941
Ramu 1,600 1,640
Teknaf 42,870 64,751
Ukhia 8,125 4,609
Grand Total 65,080 78,941
TOTAL Rohingya 212,518 900,377
Source: Situation Report: Rohingya Crisis. Inter Sector Coordination Group, Cox’s
Bazar, 11 February 2018.
2.2 Pressures on the Bangladeshi state Infrastructure

The sudden surge in refugee population has brought immense pressure to

the minimal existing infrastructure and services of the host community. The

camps are heavily overcrowded and growing rapidly in every way without

minimum scope of movement for relief work and other emergency services.

UN Joint Humanitarian Response Plan (2017) reports that the Rohingya

population are highly traumatized and in vulnerable conditions. Moreover,

the survival sex, human trafficking and drug peddling are increasing

steadily along with other social problems. Bangladesh is situated in the face

of funnel shaped Bay of Bengal, which is highly prone to Cyclone. As a

consequence, these refugee camps on the coastal area are under more risk

ofnatural disaster. In addition, these people are living in the hills, and the

random tree- cutting is increasing the possibility of landslides than the usual

rate (Stevens 2018).

This recent persecution against the Rohingya has attracted world media and

increased the involvement of the international community who were already

in the region for humanitarian and development programs since 1992. The

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that the persecution as

‘the textbook example of ethnic cleansing’ and called on the international

community to refer Myanmar to UNSC for condemnation against this crime

(UNHCHR 2017). UNSC responded merely by urging Myanmar to stop the

violence against the Rohingya people while urging Bangladesh to show due

regard to the principle of non-refoulement. Most of the international and

regional organizations along with European Union, Organization of Islamic

Cooperation, raised their voice against this ‘clearing operations’ though

some organizations took ‘quiet diplomacy’.

Most importantly, as regional countries, India and China had different and

skeptical stand and role on this issue. Bangladesh keeps the border open and

welcomes every Rohingya people coming from Myanmar. But Malaysia,

India and Thailand sealed their border this time and returned back them to

the sea (Morris 2017:3). The United Kingdom, the United States have

demanded for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Myanmar for

this persecution, but China and Russia blocked the attempt. Some Middle

Eastern countries strongly raised their voice against this ethnic cleansing

and crime against humanity. They spoke in favor of world Muslim

brotherhood and urged for action in the face of such atrocity whereas other

Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia remained silent. Nonetheless, it

promised US$15 million in humanitarian aid, but nothing about the

Myanmar’s action against Rohingya people.

In summary, the long suffering of Rohingya people seemed distanced to

remain caught up in the web of the persecuting state of Myanmar without it

ever being held responsible, while Bangladesh with its limited capabilities

and resources forced to keep its doors open while the international

community is focused on short term humanitarian relief and the farfetched

prospect of repatriation without addressing the root cause of the problem.

That entails facing the power relations that exist in the region and how they

influence the persistence of the Rohingya persecution.

Chapter Three: The Role of the main actors in the Rohingya

crisis: Myanmar, Bangladesh and the International Community

The chapter discusses critically the part played by the three main actors in

the Rohingya refugee crisis: the persecuting state of Myanmar, the

Bangladeshi state as the host country and the international community and

its humanitarian and human rights focus.

It is obvious from the above statement that the Rohingya refugees do not

belong to any state or any international community. They have been living

in deplorable condition, in deep uncertainties of humanitarian actions. But it

is not a unique condition of refugees worldwide, not always a matter of

capability of host country as well international community to provide them

human rights. It is believed that refugees are mostly created from political

conflicts like war, violence, does not erupt naturally but are by products of

state and international policy implications. Conflicts are for legal and

political rights, for equal share in power or in state resources. Whenever, the

sovereign power denies its people to provide their essential rights, the

problem begins within the territory. Global refugee trends show that

refugeehood is mainly a third world crisis; they are originated and suffer

mostly in third world countries. And the predominance of the crises in third

world countries is not a geographical coincidence but the result of the policy

actions of rich countries (Malkki 1995:503).

The Rohingya refugee crisis begins just after the first initiatives for nation

building – the identification of nationals for the state in Myanmar. Nation-

state comprises of two separate entities of a nation and a state. There may be

many groups who belong to different cultural apparatus and presence of

‘imagined communities’ (Anderson 2006). State is objective and ultimate

whereas the nation is subjective, is constructed on many cultural elements.

So, the nation-state aims to unite these communities under single

nationalism through democratization or western notion of sovereignty rather

than the despotic style - practiced in the oriental (Taylor 1987:67). It is

widely believed that democratic transition triggers political violence, very

likely in a multiethnic society (Davenport et al. 2003:46). Myanmar is well

known as a country in ‘isolation’ because of its long-term military

dictatorship. Nevertheless, it attempts to practice democratic ideals without

fulfilling the basic rights of the people living in the territory and most

importantly political rights. It undertakes the state building process through

democratization from the socialist regime, while nation–building proceeds

on ‘national race’, has recognized 135 ethnic groups for their

representations in the state system (Cheesman 2017:465). In this regard, the

crisis not only involves the democratic transition but also formation of a

nation-state on the basis of Buddhist nationalism, strict bordering only for

certain members. The state parties determine to build up the state in this

normative and maintain the state system anyhow. These States neither wish

to end the conflicts or state-making processes nor it is possible for these

states to ignore the policy leverage from International Community in this

regard. Both Myanmar and Bangladesh have the same history of state and
nation-building process, which are affecting all members of the

communities of these territories. Thus, it requires a special focus on the

paradox within the state and between the state and international system to

fathom out generating the refugees in Southeast Asia.

3.1 Role of Myanmar as the cause of the Rohingya refugee crisis

Myanmar is predominantly a Buddhist country of about 58 million people,

approximately 15% of them follow Islam (Pugh 2013: 11). A Government

statistics in 2010 shows that Rakhine state has the largest number of Muslim

people about 35.6% of the total population of the state (Alam 2011:2).

However, the percentage has decreased to 30% in the recent population

census and it has ignored the Rakhine Muslim or the Rohingya Muslim

because they are not citizens of the country (UNHCR et al. 2016).

Apparently, the denial of citizenship right of Rohingya Muslims, has

recently triggered violence more pervasive than the previous conflicts in

Myanmar. Military regime began its nation-building process through the

identification of citizens of the territory according to ethnic identities based

on Citizenship Law 1982. But the authoritarian ruler turned the ethnic

identities into political identities in the subsequent period, denying the

historical existence of this minority group in Myanmar (Bjornberg

2016:157).

The term ‘Rohingya’ is related to colonial and pre-colonial terms Rooinga

and Rwangya and the modern term Rohingya refers to the Arakan State

(British Foreign Office, 1952:3). There are two types of explanation of

Rohingya identity – pro-Rohingya and the anti-Rohingya. Pro-Rohingya

discourse determines Rohingya as an ethnically distinct group of people

living in Bamar Kingdom since the ninth century while the other group

think that Rohingya are a modern construct, comprised of illegal Bengalis

from Chittagong, and takes this identity to gain Myanmar’s citizenship

(HRW 1996). For pro-Rohingya group of scholars, the sea beaches of

Rakhine state attracted initially the Muslims traders from India and Persia

more than a millennium ago, who had no intention to settle there but the

laws of nature and seafaring bound them to stay for many years since the

ninth century (Wade 2017:24). The frequency of trading and the size of the

Muslim population were growing steadily. However, the Bamar King was

determined to protect Buddhism and the Buddhist population in Arakan– a

remote area of the Kingdom. The growth rate of Muslim population was

higher than the Buddhist population and by this time a large number of the

Muslims population established a secured position in Arakan.

Afterthe establishment of Arakan/Rakhine3 kingdom in 1430 - one of the

important parts of Sultanate of India, continued to rule directly from the

then Bengal without having boundary in between. It came under Burmese

control in 1784-85 though shortly it was taken over by the British colonist

in 1826. British Colonial takeover in Indian Subcontinent strengthened

Rohingya’s position in Rakhine state. British authority used to rule the

Bamar Kingdom under the same administration in India and promoted the

Rohingya people for trading.

3. Arakan/Rakhine – Arakan state has been renamed to Rakhine in 1989. Thus, ‘Rakhine’ is
used here mostly but Arakan is also used sometime for consistency.
Ibrahim (2016), D’costa (2016) and Wade (2017) in their recent work on

Rohingya people, argue strongly with historical evidence that the Rohingya

people existed in Myanmar long before the colonial period. Smith and

Allsebrook (1994:1) contend that Rakhine Muslims the present day

Rohingya came to the Upper territory of Burma at the same time of the main

Burman ethnic group around in 9th or 10 centuries. On the other hand, anti-

Rohingya discourse argues that Rohingya people are Bengalis and illegal in

Myanmar, whose religion is Islam and their language resembles

Chittagonian Bengalis (Chan 2005:397). A large number of Bengalis

infiltrated into Myanmar during the colonial period and they have long

history of denial of loyalty to Burma (Yegar 1972:96). They mingled with

the local Arakan Muslims and formed their unity in Second World War,

when they both fought against the other Burmese. Rohingya Muslims were

marginalized in every sphere of life but they witnessed this radical

politicization of identity just after the military takeover of Ne Win. He

launched the ‘Burmanization’ in 1962. Defending the anti-Rohingya

discourse, U Nu argued that a faction of these intruders formed the

Mujahedin - a rebel group who demanded the self-autonomy of Rakhine

state since 1948 - just after the national independence of Burma. The same

physical texture, lingual affinity and Islam as the common religion have

been strengthened the Burmese government justification of anti-Rohingya

discourse. Framing of this Rohingya identity by the sovereign power of

Myanmar, determines its role, policies, stands and actions towards the

Rohingya people to a great extent (Bjornberg 2016: 157, Yegar 1972: 100).
Safman (2007:30), Ganesan and Hlang (2007:55), and Jones (2017:20-23)

argue about structure of Burmese society from historical perspective and its

implication to the creation and operation of Burmese state. To them center-

periphery relation’, lowland and upland differences pre-colonial and

colonial period shape the present day relation between state and society.

Structural and cultural inequalities and discrimination continued in this

territory since the Burman Kingdom to today’s Myanmar. Nevertheless,

British colonist usurped this difference in middle of this course and

expanded from their passion of classification to control the colonies all over

the world. During the colonial period, the lowland was their economic hub

while central Burma was their main commercial point. They divided the

peripheries or the lowland as ‘states’, which happens only in the modern

concept of nation-state, as nation building was never a British priority

(Smith 1999:40). Affinity with colonial administration had inspired the

Rohingya Muslims for an independent state for themselves. But sudden

withdrawal of colonial power from Indian Subcontinent paved the way for

more suppression under the Burmese authority. Subsequent authoritarian

government of Myanmar just extended the historical discrimination legally

and politically through exclusionary policies (Ahsan Ullah 2016:289).

Military government had blocked all of their sources for livelihood initially

accusing their lack of loyalty to Burma. De facto regime continued to evict

them from the land and to obstruct their economic activities. It put

restriction on their movement from one region to another as well as imposed

charged for their movement. Rakhine Advisory Commission (2012:20)

defends the World Bank data that 60% of Rakhine household are landless,
poverty rate is 78% - double the national average of 37.54%. The GoM

extracts natural resources from the Rakhine state but it does not allocate

funds for development and for their subsistence. China and India has been

developing some commercial projects in the Rakhine state but Rakhine

people have no participation and share in the projects.

Despite the structural and cultural difference, there was no refugee crisis in

Burma before 1978. Scholars like Zin (2015) Ahsan Ullah (2016) think that

the de facto military authority exercised their uneven power to control the

minority groups and it applied contra-Rohingya discourse in different forms.

It constructed Rohingya as an exponential security threat for Myanmar and

declared the Rohingya revolutionary groups as terrorist. And the Arakan

Rohingya Salvation Army was accusedof a terrorist attack in August 2017.

The statement of the Representative from Myanmar in UNSC, said

“The situation that we face today is due to terrorism and is

not based on religion” (UNSC 8060, 2017:21).

In fact, it initiated a battle against all the ethnic militias and ordinary citizens

as well. Since the beginning of military regime, and in 1980s, Myanmar

turned into a surveillance state which also applied ‘four cuts’ 4 policy against

the insurgent groups (Fink 2001: 125). Myanmar has been facing many

stronger insurgencies and autonomy movements also from other ethnic

groups in the states like Karen, Kachin, Shan in the aftermath of its national

independence.

4. Four cuts – Stopping the food, funds, intelligence and popular support of the

armed groups.
Most of which had been controlled signing treaties with them but it applied

‘clearing operations’ against the Rohingya Muslims in the name of exerting

the so-called ‘extremist Bengali immigrants’ excuse. Like in other states of

Myanmar, Arakan Muslims of Rakhine state demanded initially an

independent state under the banner of Jamia Tul- Ulema movement in 1942

which was suppressed by subsequent military actions and the remaining

members of this movement finally ran away to the then East Pakistan in

1954 (Htut 2017:2).

During U Nu’s military regime, Myanmar witnessed challenges from some

other rebel groups in Arakan. Muslim youth formed Rohingya Independence

Front, in 1962, which reorganized as Rohingya Patriotic Front along with

the former Mujahedin. They undertook small-scale resistance against the

discriminatory policies and repression of military dictatorship. Factionalism

within this organization brought forth new militia group as Rohingya

Solidarity Organization in 1982 and Arakan Islamic Front in 1986. RSO

operated many insurgency attacks on Myanmar security forces until the

retaliation from Myanmar and Bangladesh security forces’ on their borders.

However, the Rohingya insurgent groups as well as the Rohingya Muslim

community did not pose a threat for the Burmese government, Burmese

Buddhist and the military (War and Wong 1997:80). Their formation and

reactions was initially for a new nation-state, later on for self-autonomy and

present day protest against the state-run discrimination and persecution

(HRW 2013:28). Tatmadaw had immense influence in Burmese politics

and repressed most of the ethnic groups as

well as the all the dissident voices in Myanmar (Bunte 2016:373). Thus,

Military regime deployed state power to end the demand of other ethnic

groups for a new state.

Myanmar military, like other military regimes, established political parties,

formulated legal frameworks - most importantly the constitution and every

essential institutional set up to exert their long-term control over people and

the resources. Burmese Socialist Program Party of Ne Win extensively

confiscated private property and other state resources in the name of

socialism, which resulted in economic crisis in 1980s (Bunte 2016:374).

The Military continued their repression and extortion under their hybrid

political parties and civil-military bodies like State Law and Order

Restoration Council. They extinguished all the protest movements brutally

and killed thousands of demonstrators (Bunte 2016:374, Linter 1990:120).

In fact, random torture and zero tolerance for democratic practices

ostracized the militarywhile it needed some public support to remain in

power. Thus, the military approached nation-building process based on the

triad of ‘one ethnicity, one language and one religion’ in a multi-ethnic

society (Sakhong 2012: 11, Gravers 2014: 305-307). They utilized the ethno

religious diversity of Myanmar and added Burmese language in political

identity with ‘one religion policy’ of Ne Win and Saw Muang renamed

Burma to Myanmar in 1989. The name originates from ‘Myanma’, which

had exclusively Burman implication (Cheesman 2017: 468). Consequently,

Buddhist radicalism developed heavily from Buddhist monastery under

military patronage (Kipgen 2014:242). Military junta were accepted and

exploited monk’s demand for ‘to be Burman is to be Buddhist’ which

enhanced the injustice and discrimination against the Rohingya people

(Raphael 2015:28). ‘969’ movement and Ma-Ba-Tha of Buddhist monk

played the crucial role in inflaming the anti-Rohingya sentiment all over the

country (Koh 2017:3, Segl 2018: 8).

The one religion based nationalism campaign by the military expanded the

sphere of these contra- Rohingya attitudes of Burmese ordinary Buddhist as

well. Leaders of this movement were successful in obliging the military in

formulating policies and taking brutal actions against the Muslims in

Myanmar, importantly to thwart and prevent the Rohingya to register their

ethnicity in 2014 in the first census funded by UN Population Fund in three

decades (Szep 2013: 6, Zin 2015: 385).

The last military dictator Than Shwe handed over the power to a civilian

government headed by Thein Sein as president of Myanmar but military

regime entrenched their political prerogatives as well as the radical

monkhood ideology in Myanmar politics. Thus military and Buddhist

monks cooperated with each other to wield their power, and persecuted the

Rohingya Muslims together. Scholars like Guhathakurta (2017:640) and Zin

(2015:376) allege the transition of democracy in an immature political and

nationalist set up has been contributed to trigger the violence since 2012, as

an essential move for political liberalization and nation-building.

Authoritarian government begins to implement elitist version of democracy

which normally excludes specific groups of people from the decision

making process as well as deny their human rights (Guhathakurta, 2017:

640, Zin 2015: 376). While the hardliners and moderates in the military

were engaged in a power struggle, quasi-civilian government permitted

political activities on a limited scale and political prisoners were also

released from jail (Gatade 2013). But the military wanted to exercise their

control over politics with some kind of public support; they noticed that

from Buddhist monasteries, especially in Saffron Revolution in 2007. It has

also formulated a Constitution in 2008 with the backup of monkhood, which

devoid of rights of the many ethnic minority groups. The Global War on

Terror beyond the external forces for political liberalization, influences the

Buddhist to take this stand against the Muslims and it spearheaded the

religious intolerance and hatred in Myanmar (Walton 2013). Buddhist

groups have been using as a political tool for the military ruler to gain

victory against the National League for Democracy (Zin 2015:391). Even

after the 2012 violence against the Rohingya Muslims, the then President

Thein Sein has enacted four contested laws named “Four Race and Religion

Protection Laws” specifically aiming at the Rohingya people (Zaw 2015).

Thus, the historical discrimination hasincreased massively while the state is

proclaiming it is going through democratic transition and nation building.

The efforts for nation-state led to the persecution of many ethnic groups,

which caused maximum numbers of Rohingya refugees to flee to

Bangladesh.

3.2 Role of Bangladesh as the receiving country of the Rohingya

refugees

Bangladesh also has a long struggle for nation-building and military

dictatorship. Though it is a nation-state, based on Bengali nationalism, it

could not achieve the standard of other Western countries. The principles of

bridging the gaps in nation building like rule of law, democracy, freedom of

speech are neglected in this territory since its birth. It cannot fulfill the basic

needs as well as the human rights for its citizen. In this apparatus of a trinity

of territory-nation-sovereignty becomes more susceptible to outsiders.

Rohingya people currently living in Bangladesh have no refugee status or

legal rights. They are registered as Undocumented Myanmar Nationals and

depend on humanitarian provisions. They comprise of three flights of

Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, arriving in 1992, 2012 and mostly in

2017. They are not recognized as refugees, living in the precarious

conditions of the encampment and deprived of minimum human rights.

Moreover, they are identified as ‘victims, problems, threat or burden

(Guhathakurta 2017, Rahman 2010; Azad and Jasmin 2013; Parnini 2013).

Bangladesh is not a party to the UN Refugee Convention (1951) and the

1967 Protocol. But international pressure, the geographic proximity and the

humanitarian crisis have compelled Bangladesh to receive the refugees from

Myanmar (UNHCR 2000, Van Dar et al. 2018: 931). Bangladesh has a

reputation of promoting peace and peacekeeping though it cannot strictly

maintain democratic principle. Rohingya refugee are undoubtedly enhanced

her global reputation for more bargain in development share. However,

UMNs in Bangladesh are counted as illegal immigrants, intruders under the

jurisdiction of existing Foreigners Act 1946. According to this Law, any

alien can be imprisoned for five years and fined (Guhathakurta et al.

2016:13). It has no other legal frameworks and policies for refugee

management. Non-nationals of Bangladesh are treated according to some

old laws such as the Passport Act (1920), the Naturalization Act (1926),

Registration of Foreigners Act (1939), the Foreigners Act, (1946), the

Bangladeshi Citizenship Act (1951), the Bangladeshi Control of Entry Act

(1952) the Registration of Foreigners‟ Rules (1966), the Bangladesh

Citizenship (Temporary Provision) Order (1972), the Bangladeshi Passport

Order (1973) and the Extradition Act (1974). Ahmed(2014:103) and

Guhathakurta et al. (2016) opine that these law represent the legal limitation

of the GoB and determines its role and actions towards the Rohingya

refugee in Bangladesh. However, the Bangladeshi laws do not comply with

the Rohingya refugees, the same group of scholars argue about legal

bindings of customary International Law which can be applied to ensure

their protection and human rights. In this regard, Bangladesh denies their

responsibility to Rohingya people mostly on security and economic grounds.

Rahman (2010), Parnini (2013), Laslo and Schmidt (2018), Moses and

Shandralingam (2018) demonstrate both traditional and non-traditional

security issues while in the case of economic problem, they contend that

Rohingya refugee crisis will impede the growth of Gross Domestic Product

and achievement of Sustainable Development Goals for Bangladesh. It is

concerned about the long-term burden of this refugee influx as it has been

bearing the responsibility and expenses of some of the refugee since 1991.

Rahman (2010: 237) notes:

‘The high number and prolonged residence of refugees

increases the rate at which land and resources are used up, a process

which accelerates environmental degradation and in turn leads to

 greater competition between natives and refugees for scarce land and

resources’.

The world largest sea beach in Cox’s bazar, generates the lion share of its

tourist revenue. The presence of high number of Rohingya refugees in this

area caused deterioration in law and order. Resulting in a constant decrease

in tourist revenue (Cockson 2017). GoB has already allocated 4000 acres of

forestland for accommodation but a larger areaof forest is encroached upon

unofficially for shelter and firewood. Moreover, humanitarian organizations

have been asking for more landto GoBfor accommodation purposes of the

refugees but the government is thinking of alternative places for Rohingya

refugees to preserve the forest. They occupy and damage the farming land,

which is generatinghatred to local people against the refugees on a continual

basis. Unofficially about 250,000 refugees are working in the local fishing,

salt cultivation, restaurants, transport sectors, constructions, riskshaw

pulling, vending wood and other staffs in the refugee camps (Danish

Immigration Service 2011:13). As they do not negotiate the wages, the

employer can easily exploit these Rohingya people (Farzana 2015:308).

Resultantly, local people are facing competition in labor market. Therefore,

GoB plans to transfer some of the refugees to a remote river Island named

Thengar Char, instead of utilizing more land in the same area (Sen 2017).

Porous land and coastal border between Bangladesh and Myanmar have

always posed a threat from the Rohingya militant groups who were engaged

in fighting against Myanmar for their autonomy as well as for equal

treatment from the state. Referring to the GoB and their own studies,
Rahman (2010:233-239), Parnini (2013:140), Japan Times (2017), SEGL

(2018) argue that a large number of Rohingya refugees are involved in

human trafficking, drug peddling and militant activities in and outside the

refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar. Bangladesh and Myanmar have jointly

operated many militant strikes against RSO in 2005. Felix-Joehnk (2017)

links this security threat with the radical politics in Bangladesh, developed

during the military regime.

The subsequent civil government, especially the rightist party, patronized

the religion-based groups like - Hefazat-e-Islam, Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami

(HuJI), Jamaat-i-Islami Bangladesh to exercise the state power without

representation of the people. These religious parties maintained a connection

with RSO and recruited Rohingya refugees in politics during local and

national elections (Idris 2017: 7, Ullah 2011: 156). And this hilly area was

once the breeding grounds of many extremists in Bangladesh. Security

experts think that the persecuted Rohingya people now in the refugee camp

may invigorate the ARSA in the near future to attack in Myanmar. The ISIS

has already threatened to build a base in Bangladesh for revenge attacks

against this persecution (SEGL 2018: 12). GoB announces decisive security

actions against the ARSA and it will never allow the creationof a base in

Bangladesh (Martin et al. 2017: 8-9). It has been showing zero tolerance to

radical politics and specially to fight against terrorism as one of the rising

phenomenon to be in good book of IC.

Some refugees, from previous influxes used to get Bangladeshi passports,

and migrate to Middle Eastern countries and get involved in illegal activities
there, thus damaging Bangladesh’s image (Daily Star 2012). Since the

influx in August 2017, some casualties of Rohingya refugees’ have been

reported during clash among themselves and the situation may deteriorate

further. As a result of the above concerns, GoB does not permit extended

relief and self-reliance activities for Rohingya as it may attract more

migrants from Myanmar (Bashar 2012). In fact Rohingya refugees are not

Bangladeshi, they are illegal and Myanmar nationals. So, all responsibility

of their rights and protection lies on Myanmar. Hence, Bangladesh calls for

international support for early repatriation as the only solution of the

problem. In this regard, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has proposed a five

points plan with a ‘safe zone’ in Myanmar under the UN supervision

(Parnini 2018).

The UNHCR and other humanitarian organization are also keen on the

repatriation. Bangladesh has already signed two MoUs - one with Myanmar

and another with UNHCR. However, International community and the

UNHCR defend the legal bindings of voluntary repatriation under the

refugee law and non-military measures of recent R2P. The conditions in

Rakhine state are still unsafe and volatile and naturally the refugees do not

wish to return. Hence, the prospect of a near end to the sufferings of the

Rohingya refugees is not in sight, and they have to wait in extreme

conditions for humanitarian action and the ultimate solution of repatriation

but under guarantees of their of safety and security. UNHCR has been

operating the humanitarian assistance since 1992 and recently enhanced it

efforts along with other state and non-state international actors. International
refugee regime is using all the legal and logistical instruments applicable on

the ground but the international community’s role seems very baffling. The

aggression and the brutality of Myanmar against the Rohingya are

constantly condemned but that is not enough. Both the state and non-state

actors seems motivated by protecting their own interests and divided into

their interests and keeping safe their state from this problems.

3.3 Role of International Community in managing the Rohingya refugee

crisis

IC follows their stand and actions both as individual state as well as jointly

with other supranational organizations.In case of international state actors,

they are following the cold war division and focusing on economic interest

in the name of development activities instead of human rights of the

millions of stateless people. In a recent study Wake and Yu (2018:3),

demonstrates that there is no progress for solution of the crisis because

China and Russia have blocked the UN actions and the other regional and

international organizations also are not in coherent position to solve the

issue. Western countries think that UN should have taken action against the

Myanmar. But, China and Russia support Myanmar both in economic and

military issues. Ganesen and Hlaing (2007), and Charney (2009) links this

stand with the constructivist and isolationist perspective of the global

politics towards Myanmar. In the constructivist efforts, Myanmar has many

historical dealings with India, China, Japan and Russia. Afterwards the

military takeover in 1962, different international blocks especially United

States and EU spearheaded economic embargo and other sanctions.

Myanmar was literally in isolation during the entire period of authoritarian

government and it relied mostly on her neighbors, except Bangladesh, for

economic, political and military support. It went through unlimited hurdle in

socioeconomic conditions, which has been considered as the causes of much

out migration from Myanmar as well (Ganesen and Hlang 2007:23). India

remains silent in this crisis, though Bangladesh expected India’s strong role

in ending the problem. During the liberation war of Bangladesh, India

offered shelter and food for 10 million refugees from Bangladesh and it

received Rohingya refugees in the past as well (Bjornberg 2016: 154). But,

India prioritizes its geostrategic interests shaped by their political, economic

and internal security issues. India follows ‘quiet diplomacy’ about Rohingya

crisis (Yhome 2018:5). Whenever, China has announced the ‘three steps

solution’, cease-fire, repatriation of the refugees and the economic

development in Rakhine state (Joy 2018: 3), India becomes more careful

about its geostrategic gains. India signs a MoU of $25 million five-year

development project for Rakhine state, just after signing a MoU between

Myanmar and Bangladesh on November 2017.

Western countries have been revisiting their policy for Myanmar in the

aftermath of the collapse of socialism in the 1990s and emphasizing on

political reformation in Myanmar. They continue their support to Myanmar

even after the 2012 violence against Rohingya people. However, this time

United States, United Kingdom, EU and Canada have demanded strong

action against Myanmar military and cancelled all cooperation with them

and banned travel till date (Emont 2018). Canadian Government has sent a

commission in Myanmar led by Bob Rae who reported about the evidence
of Crime Against Humanity but there is no strong role on the issue (Bob

2017:5).

China followed the same policy of ‘friendly neighbor’ with Myanmar even

after the clearing operation, and hosted a meeting with a senior officer of

Myanmar who was seeking further Chinese support (Joy 2018:4). Western

countries criticize the stand of China, Russia and India regarding the

Rohingya issue. The perplexing role of these state actors increases the

concern for Bangladesh that it has to bear the burden for long time.

Rohingya refugees are also dispersed in the nearest country like Thailand,

Malaysia, who have been deporting the boat people from their coastline.

These countries belong to the regional forum – ASEAN and Myanmar

maintains a good trade relation with them. But ASEAN stays silent on this

issue, instead of the possibility of acting as mediator in collaboration with

other actors. However, it cherishes the so-called ‘non-interference’ norm

and does not want to ‘intervene and force an outcome’ - as proclaimed by

the ASEAN chair in the summit in Australia. Other leaders in the summit

mostly speak about security issues rather than human rights violation.

However, ASEAN chair calls for UN initiatives for political solution of the

problem.

UN bodies have been focusing on humanitarian and development programs

towards the solution of the crisis, while Western states want to avoid the

criticism of insulating Myanmar again in their hard-line actions (Abdelkader

2013:405). The UN has been involved with Myanmar on Rohingya issue

since 1978 during the controversial Nagamin5operation, which caused a

refugee influx in Bangladesh (Marzoli 2015:109).

UNHCR led the humanitarian assistance along with some other humanitarian

organizations. It offered humanitarian aid and arranged for quick

repatriation in same year. After 40 year of the first Rohingya exodus,

International Refugee Regime has now many more instruments, policies,

strategies along with other UN human rights and covenants. Most

importantly, now IRR has stronger legal basis from Organization of African

Unity Convention, UNExCom Conclusion (1980) and the ‘Responsibility to

Protect’ commitment in 2005. Despite the extensive number of policy tools

and mandate for securing world peace and security, international

community and UNHCR could not end the Rohingya crisis. Moreover, they

witness the heavier flow this time than in 1978. SLORC compounded

decisive military crackdown against the so-called Rohingya militant group

in 1988 but mainly to clear the area for new cantonment, which forced the

exodus of 250,000 Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh in 1991 (Bjornberg

2016:153). UNHCR again emphasized repatriation and reconciliation, (War

and Wong 1997:85). Moreover, international community rewarded and

welcomed Myanmar into the international arena lifting bans and sanctions

against it. UN also observed that the situation was being improved in

Myanmar. But Myanmar increased its persecution against the Rohingya

Muslims in 2012.

5. Military operation for citizenship verification process conducted in 1978 in the Rakhine

state (Cheung 2011:52).

In this regard, UNSC proposed an intervention but China and Russia vetoed

the resolution (Marzoli 2015:110). Myanmar though accepted the unbinding

resolution, but did not agree to recognize Rohingya as a distinct ethnic

group (Kipgen 2014:240). UN appointed both Special Advisor and Special

Rapporteur to observe political as well as human rights issues in Myanmar.

They reported deep concern over the human rights violation to the UN

Secretary General (Ibrahim and Nordin 2015:14). UNSG urged Myanmar

specifically to settle the crisis granting citizenship rightsto Rohingya people

(UN News Centre 2013).

In some cases, position and actions of international community had

encouraged Myanmar in pursuing its clearing operations against the

Rohingya. Only the repatriation of the Rohingya refugee and no prosecution

against the perpetrator in ICC, were kind of granting impunity to the GoM

for further crime against humanity. In return, Myanmar has been operated

the most violent action against Rohingya Muslims in August 2017, which is

claimed as the ‘textbook example of ethnic cleansing’. As UNHCR and other

humanitarian groups and media were active in the region since 2012, they

has launched humanitarian assistance in great efforts along with

International Organization for Migration, Red Cross, Medicine Sans

Frontieres, Brac and other national and international organization. UN Joint

Humanitarian Response Plan callfor more fundsrepeatedly to prevent the

humanitarian catastrophe. Initially, it has received many positive responses

for their requirement of US$951 million in 2018 but the plan is worried

about the future funding for the protracted refugee crisis. For instance
United Kingdom donated£129, United States A $32, Canada US$ 46, EU

€40 million and some other funds from Organization of Islamic

Cooperation. However, ASEAN contributed nothing for humanitarian

actions (Martin et al. 2017: 11).

In summary, Myanmar has received much criticism from international

community though some of the state actors remain silent against this

persecution. The then military regime as well as the present day quasi-

civilian government engages in ethnic cleansing apparently in quest for

democracy but for a nation-state in the long run. It has not only

marginalized the this ethnic group for long since but also securitized them in

their territory, which leads to the ‘genocide intent’ or ‘slow burning

genocide’ The flow of the Rohingya refugees is undiminished and the

torture and ethnic cleansing continues in some of Rakhine villages (MSF

2018:10). International community though has been active since the 1992

refugee exodus and heavily engaged in the political liberalization process

since 2010, it could not prevent the Rohingya plight in Bangladesh. In the

Presidential Statement, UN calls for Myanmar and military to abide by the

international human rights and international humanitarian law (S/PV. 8060:

3). But the international system could not devise any effective strategies for

tackling this crisis. Consequently, Rohingya refugees are suffering in the

same apparatus of restricted nationalism in Bangladesh. It is also

maneuvering for a western style nation-state of participatory democracy but

there is no visibility of preserving human rights for her own citizen, the

question about Rohingya refugee remains far apart from this principle.
Chapter Four: The Analysis of the Plight of

Rohingya: People Caught Up in Nation Building

This chapter focuses on the dynamics of nation-building in both Myanmar

and Bangladesh, and the impact of that on the Rohingya people with a focus

on absence of the human rights legal frame in both countries that directly

impacts on the treatment and the persecution of the Rohingya and how they

end up as refugess in Bangladesh living in squalor and dire conditions. And

the limitations of the international community in finding or imposing any

just solutionto the Rohingya refugees that recognizes their political and

human rights.

4.1 Territory-Nation-Sovereignty: The Dynamics of Nation-building

The Rohingya people are victims of long-term marginalization in an uneven

power structure of Myanmar and Bangladeshi governments as well as

international refugee regime. Myanmar has been engaged in setting up a

Western type nation-state of political liberalization but in the wrong

direction. It focuses on a state of ‘a nation, territory and sovereignty’ instead

of ‘state-people-territory (Arendt 1967:282). Quasi-military government of

Myanmar has been targeted to be a developed modern nation by 2020 to

better integrate with international community (Myoe 2014:235-36). It

imposes the policy of force assimilation and exclusion of the minority

groups other than Buddhist. The intrinsic power for nation-building has been

evolved from Buddhist nationalism which controlled the

democratization process as well. Once the democratic icon of Myanmar and

leader of National League for Democracy gave hand to ethnic cleansing.

Suu Kyi as the head of the government has been supporting and relying on

the guardianship of Tatmadaw. Though Suu Kyi possess that much public

support to make the military accountable to government, it is exercising the

stereotype blame to military accomplishing the clearing operations.

Moreover, Myanmar military has been perfectly adopted the contested

Citizenship Law 1982 to nation-building based on Buddhist nationalism. It

had even taken back the ‘White card’ for non-citizen – the only identity card

for Rohingya people in Myanmar before the persecution. And, minority

ethnic group Rohingya Muslims has no room in this exclusionary political

space (Devetak 1996:201). On the contrary, Bangladesh is a step ahead to

this type of one nation based nation-state. It has employed extreme power

both in the liberation war in 1971 against the West Pakistan and with the

non-Bengali’s in southeastern part of Bangladesh until 1997, settled with a

peace accord. Burma - the Bamar kingdom of pre-colonial period, has been

created primarily on the basis of territorial nationality from an overall flow

of withdrawal of colonial masters globally. It is not a single nation

ethnically, and it’s the socioeconomic as well as its political structure is not

capable enough to accommodate the ethnic diversity, which burst out in the

secessionist movements just after national independence (Dukalskis

2017:717). Thus, it was difficult for a pluralistic state with authoritarian

power to cope with the global flow of capitalistic system in the disguise of

democratization. The first parliamentary government of Burma began state

building in the territorial nationality with a notion of democracy. While

democratic values attempt to bridge the gaps among different groups in the
states, it also encourages calls for the self-determination of different

minority groups.

However, this state building process also failed because of military takeover

in 1962. The military regime was busy to pull up the minimum ideals of

democracy through its religion based nationalism, ignoring other religions

of recognized 135 and some other unrecognized ethnic races predominantly

the Rohingya Muslims. It adopted a contested constitution to show their

interest in democracy to the world but entrenched all the scope of their

prerogatives. They could easily convince the majority Buddhist by

incorporating their religion and Buddhist nationalism. The Constitution in

2008 marked a clear difference of insider and outsider among its own

citizens. Furthermore, binary politics of cold war also strengthened its

effortin this process and it was difficult for Western countries to intervene in

Burmese politics bypassing the Communist blocks (Guo 2009:7). However,

some of had supported the military regime minimally until their interests

were served (Ganesan 2007:11). The regime went underground but adopted

many discriminatory and exclusionary policies to suppress the dissident

voices and parties in self-determination. In addition, liberation movement in

India and Pakistan, and the success of East Pakistan in their liberation

movement had inspired the self-determination movement to a great extent in

the Kachin, Karen, Shan, Arakan states of Burma. The international

community has been engaged actively in the peace treaties to support in

building a nation-state as par plan of the de facto military government,

indirectly they have killed the rights of self-determination many ethnic

groups. Now a day, the quasi-civilian government of Myanmar plans to

build a barbed wire fence to confirm the exclusion and maintain the territory

for the state. And, it takes the policy of ‘ethnic cleansing’ - another method

of nation building to exclude the Rohingya Muslim minority group from

their territory (Keely 1996:1055). IC community also stays silent as

Myanmar has been holding elections, opening the markets and media

eventually. Therefore, whenever, an ethnically heterogeneous territory

attempts to build up a cultural and ethnic homogeneity through

democratization, it ultimately excludes the other minority groups (Habermas

1992:342).

Accordingly, the birth of Bangladesh at the doorstep of what was then

called Burma, had an immense influence on the secessionist movement of

Rohingya people. Different rebel groups had perceived continuous threat to

the state sovereignty. Myanmar military became vigilant in securing their

border from the prospective threats of minority groups. The frequent

security operations against them have put many minorities from Kachin,

Karen and Rakhine states into confined to temporary camps and the

Rohingya Muslims as stateless (Jacobsen cited in Pugh 2013:7).

Geographically, Rohingya Muslims used to travel between Rakhine and the

then East Pakistan frequently, which had not strike the attraction of

international state system. But it has been engaging many actors now.

Whenever, Bangladesh has been achieved a nation-state and Myanmar also

is determined for a nation-state, the nation-territory-sovereignty has got the

priority instead of human rights. Myanmar has launched cleaning operations

against this minority groups. On the other hand, Bangladesh is also

determined to maintain nation-state of one dominant group and engaged in

extra security measure on the southeastern border of the Chittagong Hill

Tracts - adjacent to its Cox’s Bazar and Northern Rakhine state of Burma.

Less than 1% of the citizens of that part of Bangladesh challenged Bengali

Nationalism, who are now weakened by using excessive state force (Mohsin

1997:3). They are till now marginalized by government policies and power,

forcibly assimilating them within the Bengali Nationalism. Though

Bangladesh has been committed to democracy for a long time, state policies

are authoritative till today and it cannot ensure the human rights for every

citizen in the territory. In fact, Bangladesh argues that they are not

foreigners and intruders like Rohingya people in Bangladesh. They are from

the same national territory and it is the sacred duty of the government to

maintain its sovereignty and security anyhow.

In case of Burma, it did not accommodate the marginalized Rohingya,

moreover, it formally recognized them as ‘Others’ in the Citizenship Law of

1982. From its previous experience of ethnic conflict, Bangladesh is also

reluctant about aliens from other states. And, it expressed deep concern

about Rohingya refugees because it could create a ‘small world of other

nationalities’ along with the local minority group, which perceived a threat

to the normative apparatus of sovereignty and nationalism (Keely 1996,

Loescher 1996:8). Some Rohingya militant groups were active in the border

area, which engaged in revenge attacks on Myanmar from Bangladesh.

Since then Bangladesh has been also securitizing Rohingya Refugees and
treating them violently. Rohingyas are illegal, alien and not Bangladeshi.

D’Costa (2012:404) asserts the rights of the stranded Biharis in Bangladesh,

in the post liberation war period, who are now naturalized citizens of

Bangladesh and enjoying all the facilities from the state. But it cannot count

the refugees for these services because they are ‘Other’ not Bengalis and not

fit-able to the nation-state apparatus of Bangladesh (Bjornberg 2016:155).

Consequently, it is tarnishing the human rights of the refugees daily by not

allowing them free movement and self-reliance. Refugees are too much in

need of what appear to be a scarcity of basic needs and other services. Life

outside the UNHCR camp in some cases exceeds the repression in Myanmar

(Crossman 2014: 67).

Sometime, they are called opportunist and economic migrant. But there is

no economic opportunity for Rohingya people in Bangladesh because it also

belongs to Least Developed Countries and per capita income is not

significantly higher than that of Myanmar, which cannot attract economic

immigrant (Vogler and Rotte 2000:487, UNCDP 2018). Furthermore, this

southeastern part is more underdevelopment than other parts of the country,

and the region has been left underdeveloped intentionally. GoB thinks that

development may act as a pull factor for the refugees and economic migrant.

Thus, Government has been executing discriminatory actions against the

minority and local people living in that area of Bangladesh. Land crisis,

fastest growing population and the poverty are focused to treat with

refugees. But refugees are a not big figure compare to yearly population

growth of Bangladesh and it is obliged to provide all the facilities for new
nationals but why not for the children in the refugee camps. It is just

because of nationality and global state system.

Bangladesh- the newly independent nation-state had urged for international

support for state building and return of the refugees. IC also had responded

to Bangladesh call as the world politics was moving fast forward to global

capitalism after the collapse of Socialist world and with a gale of nation-

state and democracy. The UN first engaged with this crisis in 1978. It came

up with a strategy of repatriation and development instead ofthewidely

applied resettlement strategy in Europe and other Western countries.

Resettlement strategy was about to fail in the 1980’s due to the heavy flow

of refugees from Communist countries to Western countries (Chimni

1998:364). The western states also prescribed the developing countries for

political liberalization through financial assistance from global capital

system - the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Bangladesh

accepted the ‘Structural Adjustment Program and ‘Soft Loan’ as part of this

process while some other countries were keen about socialist principle.

After a long time of military regime, it has been started democratization

process for development in the 1990. The acceptance of the policy of

political liberalization was conducive to convince the International Refugee

system for repatriation. This GoB has raised the issues of security threat,

burden for economy and democratic practice.

Thus, Bangladesh being focused on the nation-state framework, cannot add

any value to the lives of Rohingya refugees except supporting humanitarian

assistance from international refugee regime. Hence, Rohingya people are

not safe in neither Myanmar nor Bangladesh as both states are considering

human rights along with nationality and citizenship.

4.2 The International Refugee Regime

Human rights are universal and natural. It should not be determined on the

basis of State or nationality (Weissbrodt and Collins 2006:248).In this

regard, the international community often urges these states for

implementation of international human rights and humanitarian laws mainly

based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both Myanmar and

Bangladesh have ratified the UDHR, the Convention on the Rights of the

Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of

Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights

of Persons with Disabilities and recently signed the International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. UDHR declares that everyone has

the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution

(UDHR 1948: Art 14). Article -7 of CRC obliges the state parties to

implement the registration process of a child just after its birth. CEDAW

article 9 urges for women’s right along with the nationality of their children.

Article 24 of International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights addresses

the nationality right of every child.

Though Bangladesh has ratified the Covenant it denies this right for the

newborns in the refugee camp. Even UN bodies cannot enforce these

Human Rights’ Laws because these are based on nationality. UDHR also
emphasize on nationality and citizenship of the people (Weissbrodt 2006:

246). Both Myanmar and Bangladesh deny the human rights of Rohingya

people in ‘us and others’ discourse which is not unique in international state

system. It is everywhere relates with the institution of nation, state and

territory (Passi 1998:81). Rohingya refugees have no recognized nationality

determined by state or nation-state. Thus, they are also ‘Others’ in

international legal framework and there is more chances of exploitation

(Shapiro 1988 :102).

Forcible up-rootedness is gross violation of human rights (Ferris 1993). UN

Human Rights Council, HRW, Amnesty International demonstrated

repeatedly the issue of Crime Against Humanity to the Rohingya people

since 1991 while the latest UN report identifies the persecution as ‘genocide

intent’ (UNHRC 2018: 16). Indeed UN and other international actors have

not come up with consensus to try the perpetrators. UNSC however, has

initiated a resolution against Myanmar, China and Russia - the members of

the big five club have denounced the claim and condemnation to Myanmar.

They have indicated the incident as an internal matter of Myanmar which

has the right to exercise her sovereign power to secure themselves. There

are two dilemmas to enforce the UN Charter - priority of state sovereignty

and undemocratic veto power. Firstly, Crime Against Humanity can never

be an internal matter and in this case, millions of Rohingya people have

crossed the national border (Shivakoti 2017: 75). Enforcement of human

rights here clashes with sovereignty (Balibar 2013). Secondly, though

democracy is not a political absolute, it is the mostly applied political

system till now but UNSC maintains a dictatorial principle. One of the

prosecutors has filed an appeal to the ICC for a rule on the issue but there is

minimum hope of trial of the criminal, as UNSC has not referred it to the

court (Shah 2017:183).

Moreover, Myanmar is not a party of the Rome Statute. Since the high

echelon of legal system cannot ensure the punishment of the persecutors, it

is worthless and immoral to raise issue of human rights violation against the

host country - Bangladesh. It seems the international system is also

incapable like Myanmar and Bangladesh to safeguard human rights. The

problem evolves from uneven power sharing within the state and the

international community it also reflects the power of the State regionally

and globally up above human rights. So, human rights is ‘grotesquely

abstract’ in such a powerful government and structure (Cassel 2001:135,

Malkki 1995: 518). As a consequence, humanitarian assistance remains the

only comfort zone for international community. It is conducted on

emergency basis to tackle humanitarian catastrophes. Once the plights are

stopped in a space, humanitarian effort continues to diminish day by day,

leaving the burden to the host country. It is one of the significant causes

behind the distrust of host country to humanitarian actionwhile the security

issue and other crises just enhance the wariness of the host (Laszlo and

Schmidt 2018:30). Though there is no better option to the critiques,

humanitarian action cannot be a solution because “there are no humanitarian

solutions for humanitarian problems” (Sadako Ogata, cited in Reiff

2002:22) and does not end the crisis. Hence, the IRR has been applying
strategies like ‘Peacekeeping Mission’ and ‘Stronger Military’ actions in the

refugee generating regions with the approval and supervision of the UN.

These are also state-centered arrangement and the question of sovereignty

comes forward to employ such actions. UNSC cannot ignore the obstacle

whenever a member state exercises this power for a state in favor of its

sovereignty (Louis 1995:43). But, whenever any movement of self-

determination has got success with support from any actors of IC, UN

becomes ready to recognize and congratulate the new nation-state. But, the

Rohingya Muslim though they are accused of fighting for self-

determination, they have no strong international connection to that gain. To

this end, IC supports the existing state to keep it as a unit until the final

implosion.

Nevertheless, it cannot reach a consensus about the third pillar of R2P. High

expenses and the scarcity of peacekeeper and the devastating consequences

of military intervention in some cases do not encourage the international

community to take such actions. In thecase of Rohingya refugee, UNHCR

also followed the repatriation strategies before as the only durable solution,

however there were some initiatives of local integration and resettlement.

This time GoB is dead against local integration. Sometime it is not possible

for a developing country to integrate a big influx of refugees. Local

integration totally depends on the sovereign decision of that state parties or

the nation-state who bear no individual responsibility to protect the refugees

unless temporarily for international relations. Though Vietnamese refugees

in 1980s integrated locally in many ASEAN countries, it is not happening in

case of Rohingya refugees. India, Thailand, Malaysia kept their border

closed and deported many boat people. They are violating the founding

stone of refugee protection - the non-refoulement. But UNHCR remains

silent in this regard and cannot include these states as a party of 1951

Refugee Conventions and the Protocol in 1967. It seems the UN often is

only able to call for action or just provides relief and minimal legal action

(Brooten 2015:139). International refugee system is also unable in

rendering preventive measures. They could have stop the ethnic cleansing

against Rohingya people because it was not a civil war. The quasi-civilian

government had exercised their power disproportionately based on so called

militant attack. The UN decision makers ignored the repeated early

warnings from within UN system and other human rights organization about

mass atrocities and it emphasized on economic development for human

rights even after the 2012 violence (Ayed and Jenzer 2017).

Similarly, resettlement is impossible for the huge number of refugees all

over the world. State parties of UN Refugee Convention do not abide by the

legal obligation to accept refugees. Very few countries except Germany

recently, allow refugees in significant number, which can ease the global

refugee crisis. These countries speak about xenophobic attacks, racism and

many issues to justify their actions and policies. UNHCR cannot even force

them because of the sovereignty of the states that means right of their own

governance about accepting or refusing the refugees for settlement. For

instance, only 23 Rohingya refugees in 2006 and 79 in 2007 have resettled

in Canada (Phiri 2012: 2). So, UNHCR now mainly depends on repatriation
- more state centric solution of the crisis (UNExCom 1980, Conclusion

no.18). UNHCR president Ogata declared 1990s as the decade of repatriation

(Chimni 1999:4). Like in other parts of the world it became successful to

repatriate more than 200,000 Rohingya refugees to Myanmar in 1992

though it was not literaryvoluntary (War and Wong 1997:87). The same

strategy is going to apply for the one million refugees in Bangladesh and

already has convinced Myanmar and Bangladesh to sign MoUs. Different

human rights organizations are criticizing the early efforts for repatriation

because Myanmar is not accomplishing the necessary arrangement for the

safe and dignitary return of the refugees. They claim that UNHCR is going

to make the same mistake as it did last time in 1992 (Cornish 2017).

International refugee system has failed to convince or enforce the legal

bindings to Myanmar for the Rohingyahuman rights as well as political

rights. Most importantly Myanmar is not recognizing Rohingya people as

their citizens in the nation-building process. Recently, the Foreign Minister

of GoB has expressed his deep concern after visiting the preparation for

Rohingya returnee. Myanmar has been setting up some camps for them

instead of remaking their houses in the same areas. Moreover, there is no

arrangement for livelihood and other services in the reception camp as the

minister remarks (Daily Star 2018). In addition, Suu Kyi’s government has

already started accusing Bangladesh of unnecessarily demands for

repatriation process (Cameron-Moore, 2017).

Hence, the overall repatriation process is also now in a dilemma and poses

much danger for the Rohingya returnees. Some of the actors consider this
crisis and repatriation process as their commercial prospects. India and

China are prioritizing their interest on the basis of geostrategic location of

Myanmar though they are not active in the humanitarian assistance (Hong

2008:64). India emphasizes development projects in Rakhine state rather

than raising the issue of human rights and security of Rohingya people. It

also has funded developing a seaport in the capital city Sittwe of Rakhine

state and utilizing the Myanmar’s military presence to check its own

insurgency in the North-East of Nagaland. Rohingya people have been

landless eventually because of allocation of their land forcibly without any

compensation for development projects. Without leaving no means for their

livelihood in planned way, some of them have been bound to migrate in

other countries. Besides these, other transnational corporations are also

active inthis country for investment and the World Bankhas already

confirmed US$200 million loan for development work, though

disbursement has been delayed because of the recent persecution of the

Rohingya people (HRW 2018). Western countries including United

Kingdom and United States are also against any economic sanctions because

of their interest in the ‘last frontier’ of natural resources (Al-Adawy

2013:45). Saudi Arabia, though, speaks about Muslim brotherhood; it is also

silent mainly because of the emerging oil trade with Myanmar and China

(Batrawy 2017).

In summary, every refugee crisis is manifested the refugee cycle of state

and international system, which is difficult to end. Both State parties and

international refugee regime are intertwined in such a complex format that

all of them have to act actively for their own interest and to maintain the

cycle. Myanmar maneuvered to isolate itself from Western influence behind

the curtain of China and Russia. But these countries have embraced the

economic liberalization of huge trade with Western countries with their own

type of authoritarian political system. Consequently, Myanmar also could

not ignore the spread and influence of globalization. The international

capitalistic system forced upon it political liberalization and the inner force

for its socioeconomic development. It undertook the challenging task of

nation building without reforming the discriminatory legal structures

adopted during the military regime. Western countries kept thepressure

through their development partnership and investment. Rohingya people

continue to be marginalized doubly – nationally and globally (Ahmed

2009:9). All of them wanted to include Myanmar in the nation-state club.

Myanmar has been building the state and nation through ethnic cleansing

against the Rohingya Muslim. The international community is exercising the

same strategy of humanitarian action, development program, and durable

solution but cannot enforce their laws for safeguarding the human rights of

the refugees.
Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendation

Given the above discussion, it is evident that both Bangladesh and

international refugee system are unable to put an end to the refugee crisis

and hold Myanmar responsible for their persecution of the Rohingya

refugee in the existing normative and legal set up. Myanmar and

Bangladesh have been focusing on state security, sovereignty, boundary,

nationalism and citizenship. Myanmar even does not consider the very

existence of her people in Bangladesh as a contravention of its sovereignty

because they have no citizenship right in Myanmar. Ethnically distinct and

politically excluded, Rohingya refugees do not fit in these states and the

international system. International community always prefers and pushes for

repatriation as the ultimate solution as refugee system has lack of capacity

to enforce the resettlement depending on third countries’ considerations.

Similarly, local integration is a host country issue though a large number of

Rohingya refugee from the previous plight have been capable to integrate

unofficially. In case of their human rights, legal frameworks are obstructed

in the state border of territory and sovereignty where the international

system is hardly capable to play their role. IC cannot enforce some effective

international human rights laws in hour of need or never. The state system

only permit the recognized citizen and nationals, whatever Myanmar is

engaged to verify. UN and different advocacy forums have been persuading

Myanmar to grant citizenship to Rohingya people, as the Rakhine Advisory

Commission suggested to the Myanmar government to expedite citizenship

verification process according to the contested Citizenship Law 1982

(Annan 2012:25).

The security threat from ARSA, in case of Myanmar, is a total lie and big

plot against the Rohingya Muslims (Hasan 2017:56). Likewise, socio

economic conditions of Bangladesh and Myanmar cannot be used as the

pretext to isolate and persecute the Rohingya people as both states have

made significant economic progress. Neither the state parties nor the

international community consider the crisis seriously (Parnini 2013: 290).

Recurrent persecution against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar raises the

question ‘is it citizenship means to a cohesive society?’ (Anderson 2011:4).

The narratives of refugeehood reveals that citizenship is the minimal factor

of being a refugee and most of the refugees in the world today are citizens of

nation-states. But they are deprived of their human rights. Hence, there is no

hope of solution in this nation based state system (Agamben 1995: 114).

International community has been playing a perplexing role towards the

global refugee crisis whereas development programs, humanitarian and

human right advocacy and financial activities are underpinning the nation-

state (Bloemraad 2008:165). In this regard, post nationalistic scholars argue

for universal values for human rights based on ‘citizens of earth’ rather than

citizen of particular nation (Becks 2000:100). Transnational Non-

Government Organizations and philanthropic movements, refugees,

diaspora communities are some of the post-national social formations.

However, advocates of globalization foresee the end of borders and

distinctions among the people in the comings days, the post-national

thinkers cannot visualize clearly about their actions and efficacy, to replace

capitalistic nation-state. Moreover, free flow of money, introduction of soft

power, biometric registration and immigration policies in border control

represent the strength of nation-state over man till today. Thus, it adds

different sets of authority and borders on local economies and development

(Amin and Thrift 1994:2, Taylor 2013: 133).

Besides, such cosmopolitan entities also cannot represent every individual

of a society (Cheah and Robbins 1998:37). In fact these are stateless and

informal entities. The creation of the Israeli state with political power strikes

back at these post-national ideas significantly (Tololyan 1996:24).

Accordingly, climate change refugees from Island countries like Maldives,

Kiribati, and Tuvalu have been considering their alternative sovereign

entities somewhere in Australia or Saudi Arabia (Boyle 2012).Hence,

statelessness for the stateless people cannot be a peaceful way out of the

problem. States have been created by man for their welfare. Moreover, the

present day state system is the outcome of many violence and sacrifices, and

majority of the world people have been have their political and human rights

in the states. However, the post-national cohort cannot coin any objective

mechanism to replace the state system to mitigate the refugee crisis,

international refugee regime can apply the transnational discourse to shift

their nation-state based solution for refugee crisis to the regional entity

based joint integration program that has been happening unofficially in

different refugee crisis of the world.

In this regard, transnational and regional bodies may ease the dire condition

of refugees significantly. Nationals with more than one nationality or from

different nationalities can have their human rights in such entities, like in

the European Union. Every people in EU irrespective of their nationality

and territory are enjoying their human rights, and partly some political rights

as well (Benhabib 2005: 675). While the individual state system does want

to share the burden, it is flexible to enforce this strategy regionally within a

group of states (Aleinikoff 1992:201). Organization of African Unity

Convention 1969 for refugee management in African countries and regional

integration of Vietnamese refugees in different South and Southeast Asian

states were effective to manage the refugee crisis (Feller 2001:586). In case

of the Rohingya refugee, South and Southeast Asian countries can

regionally integrate them under the supervision of international refugee

system. A large number of Rohingya refugees are in de facto integration in

Malaysia, Thailand and Bangladesh. UN intervention is mandatory to

achieve the best outcome of regional integration of refugees. In this regard,

International refugee regime must undergo substantive reformation of

existing legal frameworks with a special focus on enforcement of the laws.

The international humanitarian and human rights law should be based on

human rights instead of citizenship, nationality and the sovereignty (Coles

1988). Thus, the state system and international system can prevail over the

justification of national membership over personhood as a permanent

solution of refugee crisis (Soysal, 1994: 164).

Bibliography

Abdelkader, E., 2013. The Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar: Past, Present,

and Future. Or. Rev. Int'l L., 15, p.393-411.

Agamben, G., 1995, June. We refugees. In Symposium: A Quarterly

Journal in Modern Literatures (Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 114-119). Taylor &

Francis.

Ager, A. ed., 1999. Refugees: Perspectives on the experience of forced

migration. Pinter Pub Limited.

Ahmed, I. ed., 2010. The plight of the stateless Rohingyas: Responses of the

state, society & the international community. Dhaka: University Press.

Ahmed, I., 2009. The Rohingyas: From stateless to refugee.

Dhaka, Bangladesh: University of Dhaka.

Ahsan Ullah, A.K.M., 2016. Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar: Seeking Justice

for the “Stateless”. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(3),

pp.285-301.

Ahsan Ullah, A.K.M., 2011. Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh: Historical

exclusions and contemporary marginalization. Journal of Immigrant &

Refugee Studies, 9(2), pp.139-161.

Al-Adawy, H.E.B.A., 2013. Persecution of the Rohingya-The Dark Side of

Development in Myanmar. SPOTLIGHT on Regional Studies, 32(10),

pp.43-65.

Alam, M.A., 2011. Marginalization of the Rohingya in Arakan State of

Western Burma. Available at:

https://www.scribd.com/document/120659151/Marginalization-of-the-

Rohingya-in-Arakan-State-of-Western-Burma. [Accessed 25 August 2018].

Aleinikoff, T.A., 1992. State-centered refugee law: From resettlement to

containment. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev., 14, p.186-204.

Amin, A. and Thrift, N., 1995. Globalization, institutions, and

regional development in Europe. Oxford university press.

Anderson, B., 2006. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin

and spread of nationalism. Verso Books.

Anderson, B., 2011. Citizenship: what is it and why does it matter. Policy

Primer, Oxford: The Migration Observatory. Available at: http://www.

migrationobservatory. ox. ac. uk/sites/files/migobs/Citizenship% 20Policy

20Primer. pdf. [Accessed 13 August 2018]

Arendt, H. 1967. The Origins of Totalitarianism, 3rd Ed., George Allen &

Unwin Ltd, London.

Ayed, N. and Jenzer, S., 2017. Did the UN ignore warnings of ethnic

cleansing of Rohingya in Myanmar? Available at:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/did-the-un-ignore-warnings-of-ethnic-

cleansing-of-rohingya-in-myanmar-1.4357252. Accessed 21 August 2018.

Azad, A., & Jasmin, F., 2013. ‘Durable Solutions To The Protracted

Refugee Situation: The Case Of Rohingyas In Bangladesh’. Journal of

Indian Research 1(4), 25-35.

Balibar, E., 2013. Masses, classes, ideas: studies on politics and

philosophy before and after Marx. Routledge.

Bashar, I., 2012. Rohingyas in Bangladesh and Myanmar: quest for a

sustainable solution. Singapore. S. Rajaratnam School of International

Studies

Batrawy, A., 2017. Rohingya Crisis: Saudi Arabia stays silent on growing

humanitarian disaster despite oil interest and historic ties. The Independent.

Available at. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-

east/rohingya-crisis-latest-saudi-arabia-burma-muslim-refugees-

persecution-rakhine-oil-bangladesh-china-a7958716.html. [Accessed 29

July 2018].

Bazirake, J.B., 2017. The Contemporary Global Refugee Crisis.

Peace Review, 29(1), pp.61-67.

Beck, U., 2000. The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age

of modernity. The British journal of sociology, 51(1), pp.79-105.

Benhabib, S., 2005. Borders, boundaries, and citizenship. PS: Political

Science & Politics, 38(4), pp.673-677.

Bjornberg, A., 2016. Rohingya Territoriality in Myanmar and Bangladesh:

Humanitarian Crisis and National Disordering. Myanmar’s Mountain and

Maritime Borderscapes: Local Practices, Boundary-Making and Figured

Worlds, p.146.

Boyle, R., 2012. Maldivian Leaders Might Move the Entire Nation to

Australia If Sea Keeps Rising. The Popular Science. Available at:

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-01/maldivian-leaders-are-

buying-foreign-land-future-climate-refugees. [accessed 21 August 2018]

British Broadcasting Corporation. 2018. Myanmar Rohingya: What you

need to know about the crisis. 24 April 2018. Available at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41566561. [Accessed on 18 July

2018]

British Foreign Office, 1952. The Mujahid Revolt in Arakan. Available at:

www.burmalibrary.org/.../FCO-1952-12-31-

The_Mujahid_Revolt_in_Arakan-en-red. [Accessed on 28 July 2018]

Brooten, L., 2015. Blind spots in human rights coverage: Framing violence

against the Rohingya in Myanmar/Burma. Popular Communication, 13(2),

pp.132-144.

Bunte, M., 2016. Myanmar’s protracted transition: arenas, actors, and

outcomes. Asian Survey, 56(2), pp.369-391.

Cameron-Moore, S., 2017. Myanmar blames Bangladesh for delaying

accord on repatriating Rohingya, The Reuters. Available at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/usmyanmar-rohingya/myanmar-blames-

bangladesh-for-delaying-accord-on-repatriating-rohingyaidUSKBN1D13K9
[Accessed 29 July 2018]

Cassel, D., 2001. Does international human rights law make a difference.

Chi. J. Int'l L., 2, p.121.

Chan, A., 2005. The Development of a Muslim Enclave in Arakan

(Rakhine) State of Burma (Myanmar). SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research,

3(2), pp.396-420.

Charney, M.W., 2009. A history of modern Burma. Cambridge University

Press.

Cheah, P. and Robbins, B. eds., 1998. Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling

beyond the nation (Vol. 14). U of Minnesota Press.

Cheesman, N., 2017. How in Myanmar “National Races” Came to Surpass

Citizenship and Exclude Rohingya. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 47(3),

pp.461-483.

Cheung, S., 2011. Migration control and the solutions impasse in South and

Southeast Asia: Implications from the Rohingya experience. Journal of

Refugee Studies, 25(1), pp.50-70.

Chimni, B.S., 1999. From resettlement to involuntary repatriation:

towards a critical history of durable solutions to refugee problems. Centre

for Documentation and Research, United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees.

Chimni, B.S., 1998. The geopolitics of refugee studies: A view from the
South. Journal of refugee studies, 11(4), pp.350-374.

Coles, G.J., 1988. The human rights approach to the solution of the

refugee problem: a theoretical and practical enquiry (pp. 195-221). Nova

Scotia: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Colson, E. 1989. 'Overview', Annual Review of Anthropology 18:1-16.

Cookson, F., 2017. ‘Impact of the Rohingya Crisis on Bangladesh (Part II)’.

The independent. Available

at:http://www.theindependentbd.com/post/118117. [Accessed 11 August

2018].

Cornish, L., 2017. How can the US and humanitarian groups respond to the

Rohingya crisis? 02 October 2017. Available at:

https://www.devex.com/news/how-can-the-us-and-humanitarian-groups-

respond-to-the-rohingya-crisis- 91167?

utm_source=website&utm_medium=box&utm_campaign=linking_s

trategy. [Accessed 10 July 2018].

Crossman, L., 2014. Myanmar's Rohingya Refugees: The Search for

Human Security (Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University).

Danish Immigration Service, 2011. Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and

Thailand: Factfinding mission to Bangladesh and Thailand. Available at:

http://www.refworld.org/docid/4dd0d6f72.html [Accessed 13 July 2018].

Davenport, C., Moore, W. and Poe, S., 2003. Sometimes you just have to

leave: Domestic threats and forced migration, 1964-1989. International

Interactions, 29(1), pp.27-55.

D’Costa, B., 2016. ‘Borders, Boundaries and Statelessness’, in A Riaz & M.

S. Rahman (eds.), Routledge Hand Book of Contemporary Bangladesh,

London and New York. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 402-413,

D’Costa, B., 2012. “The Rohingya and the Denial of ‘the Right to Have

Rights’”. dvb, 4 July. Available at:http://www.dvb.no/analysis/the-rohingya-

and-the-denial-of-the-%E2%80%98right-to-have-rights%E2%80%99/22749

Devetak, R., 1996. ‘Postmodernism’, in S. Burchill & A. Linklater (eds),

Theories

of International Relations. Macmillan Press Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke

& London.

Dukalskis, A., 2017. Myanmar’s Double Transition: Political Liberalization

and the Peace Process. Asian Survey, 57(4), pp.716-737.

Emont, J., 2018. Myanmar Dismisses Rohingya-Crisis General Amid EU

Sanctions. The Wall Street Journal. Available at:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/myanmar-dismisses-rohingya-crisis-general-

amid-eu-sanctions-1529964635. [Accessed 15 August 2018].

Farzana, K.F., 2016. Voices of the Burmese Rohingya Refugees: Everyday

Politics of Survival in Refugee Camps in Bangladesh. Pertanika Journal

of

Social Sciences & Humanities, 24(1).

Farzana, K.F., 2015. Boundaries in Shaping the Rohingya Identity and the
Shifting Context of Borderland Politics. Studies in Ethnicity and

Nationalism, 15(2), pp.292-314.

Feller, E., 2001. International refugee protection 50 years on: The protection

challenges of the past, present and future. International Review of the Red

Cross, 83(843), pp.581-606.

Felix-Joehnk, T., 2017. ‘How the Rohingya crisis is changing Bangladesh’.

New York Times, 6 October 2017. The New York Times. Available at:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/rohingya-bangladesh-

myanmar.html. [Accessed 1 August 2018].

Ferris, E.G., 1993. Beyond borders: refugees, migrants and human rights

in the post-cold war era. WCC publications.

Fink, C., 2001. Living silence: Burma under military rule. Zed Books.

Ganesan, N. and Hlaing, K.Y. eds., 2007. Myanmar: state, society

and ethnicity. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Gatade, S. 2013 “Burma — Lest we don’t see, A Genocide is in the

making,” Kafila, 16 May 2013. Available at:

http://kafila.org/2013/05/16/burma-lestwe-dont-see-a-genocide-is-in-the-

making-guest-post-by-bonojit-hussain. [Accessed 3 August 2018].

Gravers, M., 2014. Politically Engaged Buddhism–Spiritual Politics or

Nationalist Medium?”. Burma/Myanmar: Where Now, pp.293-322.

Grundy-Warr, C. and Wong, E., 1997. Sanctuary under a plastic sheet–the

unresolved problem of Rohingya refugees. IBRU Boundary and Security

Bulletin, 5(3), pp.79-91.

Guhathakurta, M., 2017. Understanding Violence, Strategising Protection.

Asian Journal of Social Science, 45(6), pp.639-665.

Guhathakurta, M., Begum, S. and Rahman, S. 2016. A needs assessment of

UMNs population and capacity assessment of service providers in makeshift

settlements with a focus on Sex and Gender Based Violence (SGBV).

International Organization for Migration.

Guhathakurta, M., 2010. Cartographic Anxieties, Identity Politics and the

Imperatives of Bangladesh Foreign Policy. South Asian Journal of

Peacebuilding, 2, pp.1-10.

Guo, X., 2009. Democracy in Myanmar and the paradox of

international politics. Institute for Security and Development Policy.

Habermas, J., 1992. Citizenship and national identity: some reflections on

the future of Europe. Citizenship: Critical Concepts, 2, pp.341-358.

Haddad, E., 2003. The refugee: The individual between sovereigns.

Global Society, 17(3), pp.297-322.

Hansen, R., 2015. Population displacement and the global refugee system.

In Policy Report presented at the Congress of Vienna.

Hasan, M.M., 2017. The Rohingya Crisis: Suu Kyi’s False Flag and Ethnic
Cleansing in Arakan. Irish Marxist Review, 6(19), pp.50-61.

Henkin, L., 1995. Human rights and state sovereignty. Ga. J. Int'l &

Comp. L., 25, p.31.

Hong, Z., 2008. ‘China and India Courting Myanmar for Good Relations’.

In Emile Kok-Kheng Yeoh (Ed), Facets of a Transforming China:

Resource, Trade and Equity (pp. 64-78). Kuala Lumpur: Institute of China

Studies.

Htut Y., 2017. A Background to Security Crisis in Northern Rakhine. Yusof

Ishak Institute. Singapore. Available at:

https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/ISEAS_Perspective_2017_79.pdf

Human Rights Watch, 1996. Burma: The Rohingya Muslims: Ending a

cycle of exodus?. Rep. no. 1079-2309. 9th ed. Vol. 8. New York: Human

Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch, 2013. All You Can Do, is Pray. Available at: Human

Rights Watch.Available at:

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/burma0413_FullForWeb.pdf.

[Accessed 17 August 2018].

Ibrahim, A., 2016. The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar's Hidden Genocide.

Oxford University Press.

Ibrahim, H. and Nordin, R., 2015. The Principle of Responsibility to

Protect: The Case of Rohingya in Myanmar. Pertanika Journal of

Social
Sciences & Humanities, 23.

Idris, I., 2017. Rohingya refugee crisis: impact on Bangladeshi politics.

Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/.../233-Rohingya-

Refugee-Crisis-Impact-on-Ba...[Accessed 4 July 2018].

IHRPS (Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies), 2014. Equal only in

name: The human rights of stateless Rohingya in Malaysia (Report). Salaya,

Thailand: Mahidol University.

Inter Sector Coordination Group (2018). Situation Report: Rohingya Crisis.

Available at:

https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www...info/.../20180426_iscg_

sitrep.pdf. [Accessed 10 July 2018].

Japan Times (2017). ‘Security concerns build in South Asia as Rohingya

crisis worsens.’ The Japan Times, Sep 15, 2017. Available at:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/09/15/asia-pacific/security-

concerns-build-south-asia-rohingya-crisis-worsens/#.WfBueJj2aP8.

[Accessed 13 August 2018].

Jones, W.J., 2017. Myanmar’s Rohingya: Human Rights Abuses and

Systemic Violence. Journal of Urban Culture Research, 14, pp.16-33.

Joy, A., 2018. Understanding China’s Response to the Rakhine Crisis.

Available at: https://www.usip.org/.../sr419-understanding-chinas-

response- to-the-rakhine-crisis.pdf. [Accessed 18 July 2018].

Khan, Z.R., 1994. Bangladesh in 1993: Values, identity, and development.

Asian Survey, 34(2), pp.160-167.

Keely, C.B., 1996. How nation-states create and respond to refugee flows.

International Migration Review, pp.1046-1066

Kipgen, N., 2014. Addressing the Rohingya problem. Journal of Asian

and African Studies, 49(2), pp.234-247.

Kofi, A. A., 2012. Towards a Peaceful, Fair and Prosperous Future of the

People of Rakhine. Advisory Commission on Rakhine State. Available at:

www.rakhinecommission.org/the-final-report. [Accessed 10 July 2018].

Koh, I.R., 2017. Raising Responsibility in Rakhine Security Essay. pdf.

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/ian_russell_koh/10. [Accessed 8

August 2018].

Kyaw, N.N., 2015. Alienation, Discrimination, and Securitization: Legal

personhood and cultural personhood of Muslims in Myanmar. The

Review of Faith & International Affairs, 13(4), pp.50-59.

László, E.L. and Schmidt, J.D., 2018. The impact of refugees on host

countries: A case study of Bangladesh under the Rohingya influx. Master’s

Thesis. Alborg University, Denmark. Available at:

https://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/281553531/Thesis.pdf. [Accessed 14

July 2018].

Leider, J.P., 2014. Rohingya: The name, the movement, the quest for

identity. Nation Building in Myanmar, 255.

Lintner, B., 1990. Outrage: Burma's struggle for democracy (p. 120).

Bangkok: White lotus.

Loescher, G., 1996. Beyond charity: International cooperation and the

global refugee crisis: A twentieth century fund book. Oxford University

Press.

Malkki, L., 1992. National geographic: The rooting of peoples and the

territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees.

Cultural anthropology, 7(1), pp.24-44.

Malkki, L.H., 1995. Refugees and exile: From" refugee studies" to the

national order of things. Annual review of anthropology, 24(1), pp.495-523.

Martin M F, Margesson R & Vaughn B 2017. The Rohingya Crises in

Bangladesh and Burma. Congressional Research Service. Available at:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45016.pd. [Accessed 12 July 2018].

Marzoli, R., 2015. The protection of human rights of Rohingya in

Myanmar: the role of the international community. Master’s Thesis. The

Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli, Italy.

Available at: https://tesi.luiss.it/14877/1/marzoli-riccardo-tesi-2015.pdf.

[Accessed 20 July 2018].

Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF), 2018. No One Was Left: Death and

Violence Against the Rohingya in Rakhine State, Myanmar. MSF,

Doctors Without Borders. Available at:

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.ca/.../2018_-_03_-_no_one_was_left_-
_advocacy. [Accessed 22 August 2018].

Miliband, D., 2017. The Global Refugee Crisis and What To Do About It.

James Martin Memorial Lecture. International Rescue Committee.

Available at:

https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/event/2388. [Accessed 12 August 2018].

Mohsin, A., 1997. The politics of nationalism: the case of the

Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Cambridge.

Morris, C., 2017. Rohingya refugees from Myanmar at the “gates of hell”

International law duties of neighbouring States to refugees and asylum

seekers Briefing note. Available at: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?

hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Rohingya+r efugees+from+Myanmar+at+the+

%E2%80%9Cgates+of+hell%E2%80%9

D+International+law+duties+of+neighbouring+States+to+refugees+and+as

ylum+seekers&btnG=[Accessed 11 July 2018].

Moses, F. and Kengatharan, S., 2018. Bringing Rohingya Refugee Off-

Track of Long-term Economic Vulnerability in Bangladesh. Journal of

Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 3(1), pp.42-50.

Myoe, M.A., 2014. The soldier and the state: the Tatmadaw and political

liberalization in Myanmar since 2011. South East Asia Research, 22(2),

pp.233-249.

Parnini, S.N., Othman, M.R. and Ghazali, A.S., 2013. The Rohingya

refugee crisis and Bangladesh-Myanmar relations. Asian and Pacific

Migration Journal, 22(1), pp.133-146.

Parnini, S.N., 2018. The Rohingya crisis a test for Bangladesh–Myanmar

relations. The East Asia Forum. Available at:

www.eastasiaforum.org/.../the-rohingya-crisis-a-test-for-bangladesh-

myanmar-relation.[Accessed 28 July 2018].

Paasi, A. (1998). ‘Boundaries as social processes: territoriality in the world

of flows’, Geopolitics, 3(1), 69-88.

Phiri, P.P., 2012. Rohingyas and refugee status in Bangladesh.

Amnesty International.

Rae, B., 2018. Tell Them We Are Human: What Canada and World Can Do

about Rohingya Crisis. The Government of Canada. Available at:

http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.854622/publication.html. [Accessed 11

July 2018].

Raphael, B., 2015. Nationalism and the Politicization of Identity: The

Implications of Burmese Nationalism for the Rohingya. Bachelor's thesis,

Universiteit Leiden. Available at:https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?

hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Nationali

sm+and+the+Politicization+of+Identity%3A+The+Implications+of+Burme

se+Nationalism+for+the+Rohingya&btnG=. [Accessed 14 July 2018].

Rahman, U., 2010. The Rohingya refugee: A security dilemma for

Bangadesh. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 8, 233–239.

Rieff, D., 2002. A bed for the night: Humanitarianism in crisis. London:
Vintage.

Ron, J., 2000. Imagining the World through Refugee Discourse.

International Studies Review, 2(1), pp.139-141.

Safman, R.M., 2007. Minorities and state-building in mainland Southeast

Asia. Myanmar: State, society and ethnicity, pp.30-69.

Sakhong, L.H., 2012. The dynamics of sixty years of ethnic armed conflict

in Burma. Burma Centre for Ethnic Studies Analysis Paper NO.1.

Schmeidl, S., 1997. Exploring the causes of forced migration: A pooled

time-series analysis, 1971-1990. Social Science Quarterly, pp.284-308.

Schmeidl, S., 2000. The quest for accuracy in the estimation of forced

migration. Occasional Paper.Thomas J. Watson, Jr. Institute for

International Studies, pp.127-158

Segl, 2018. The Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar. The School for Ethics and

Global Leadership, Spring 2018. Available at:

http://schoolforethics.org/wp-

content/uploads/2018/05/RohingyaCrisisinMyanmar.pdf

[Accessed 16 July 2018].

Sen, G. 2017. ‘Bangladesh and the Rohingyas: Implications of

Refugee Relocation to Thengar Char Island’. IDS Comments, 28

February 2017. Available at: https://idsa.in/idsacomments/bangladesh-

and-the-
rohingya_gsen_280217. [Accessed 9 August 2018].
Shah, R.L., 2017. Assessing the Atrocities: Early Indications of Potential

International Crimes Stemming from the 2017 Rohingya Humanitarian

Crisis. Loy. LA Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 41, p.181.

Shapiro, M.J., 1988. The politics of representation: Writing practices

in biography, photography, and policy analysis. University of

Wisconsin Press.

Shivakoti, R., 2017. ASEAN’s role in the Rohingya refugee crisis.

Forced Migration Review, (56), pp.75-77.

Smith, M.J., 1999 Burma: Insurgency and the politics of ethnicity. Zed

Books.

Smith, M., Allsebrook, A. and Sharman, A.M., 1994. Ethnic groups in

Burma: development, democracy and human rights (Vol. 8). London: Anti-

Slavery International.

Soguk, N., 1999. States and strangers: Refugees and displacements of

statecraft (Vol. 11). U of Minnesota Press.

Southwick, K., 2015. Preventing mass atrocities against the stateless

Rohingya in Myanmar: A call for solutions. Journal of International Affairs,

68(2), p.137.

Soysal, Y.N., 1994. Limits of citizenship: Migrants and

postnational membership in Europe. University of Chicago Press.

Steinberg, D., 2013. Burma/Myanmar: What Everyone Needs to Know®.

Oxford University Press.

Stevens, J. 2018. ‘Now Rohingya refugees are threatened by monsoons.

Britain must help’, The Guardian, London, 7 May. Available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/07/rohingya-

refugees-monsoon-myanmar-bangladesh. [Accessed 13 August 2018].

Szep, J., 2013. Buddhist monks incite Muslim killings in Myanmar. Reuters

The Daily Star, 2012. Rohingyas with green passports’. Dhaka, August 12.

Available at: https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-245812. [Accessed

29 July 2018].

The Daily Star, 2018. Rohingya Repatriation: Progress Quite Insignificant.

Dhaka, August 12. Available at: http://epaper.thedailystar.net/index.php?

opt=view&page=9&date=2018-08-

12. Accessed on 18 August 2018.

Taylor, H., 2013. Refugees, the State and the Concept of Home.

Refugee Survey Quarterly, 32(2), pp.130-152.

Taylor, R. H. 1987. The State in Burma. Honolulu: University of Hawaii

Press, p. 67.

Theodorakis, K., 2014. Refugees, citizens and the nation-state:

Unrecognised anomalies and the need for new political imaginaries.

The ANU Undergraduate Research Journal, 6: p.37-48.

Tololyan K., 1996. Rethinking diaspora (s): Stateless power in the

transnational moment. Diaspora: a journal of transnational studies, 5(1),

pp.3-36.

UCDP, 2015. Uppsala Conflict Database 2015. Available at:

http://ucdp.uu.se/#/year/2015. [Accessed 16 July 2018].

UNCDP, 2018. List of Least Development Countries 2018. UN

Committee for Development Policy. Available at:

https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-

content/uploads/sites/45/publication/ldc_list.pdf. [Accessed 17 August

2018].

UNHCHR, 2017. Darker and more dangerous: High Commissioner updates

the Human Rights Council on human rights issues in 40 countries. 11

September. Available at:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.

aspx?NewsID=22041&LangID=E [Accessed 28 July 2018]

UNHRC, 2018. Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding

Mission on Myanmar. United Nations Human Rights office for High

Commissioner. Available at:

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/MyanmarFFM/Pages/Reportoft

heMyanmarFFM.aspx. Accessed 28 August 2018.

UNHCR, 2018. Global Trends: Forced Displacement 2017. United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/5b27be547.pdf. [Accessed 20 August 2018].

UNHCR, 2018. Joint Humanitarian Response Plan March-December 2018.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/uk/partners/donors/5ab8e23a7/2018-joint-response-

plan-rohingya-humanitarian-crisis-march-december-2018.html. [Accessed

10 July 2018].

UNHCR, 2017. UN Principals call for solidarity with Rohingya refugees.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Available at:

https://www.iom.int/news/un-principals-call-solidarity-rohingya-refugees.

[Accessed 14 August 2018].

UNHCR, 2016. Shelter-NFI-CCCM Rakhine Cluster Analysis Report.

Myanmar: Available at: https://www.sheltercluster.org/hub/rakhine

[Accessed 20 August 2018].

UNHCR, 2014. The 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Person.

UNHCR, 2000. Country Operation: Bangladesh—UNHCR mid-year report.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Available at:

www.refworld.org/.[Accessed 10 August 2018].

UNHCR, 1980. Executive Committee of the UNHCR Progr: amme,

Conclusion no. 18, 31st Session. United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees. Available

athttp://www.unhcr.org/uk/excom/exconc/3ae68c6e8/voluntary-

repatriation.html. [Accessed 14 July 2018].

UN News Centre, 2013. Continued support vital as Myanmar proceeds with

transition process, says Ban. UN News. Available at: http://

www.un.org/apps/news/story. [Accessed 13 August 2018].

UNSC, 2017. The Situation in Myanmar. 8060th Meeting. 27September.

United Nations Security Council. Available at:

www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-

4E9C.../s_pv_8060.pdf.[Accessed 19 July 2018]

UNSC, 1994. 1994. Final Report on former Yugoslavia: S/1994/674, 27

May. United Nations Security Council Available at:

www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/un_commission_of_experts_report1994_en.

pdf.[Accessed 19 July 2018]

Van Hear, N., Bakewell, O. and Long, K., 2018. Push-pull plus:

reconsidering the drivers of migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration

Studies, 44(6), pp.927-944.

Vogler, M. and Rotte, R., 2000. The effects of development on migration:

Theoretical issues and new empirical evidence. Journal of Population

Economics, 13(3), pp.485-508.

Wade, F., 2017.Myanmar’s Enemy Within: Buddhist Violence and

the Making of a Muslim ‘Other’, Zed Books Ltd, UK.

Wake, C. and Yu, B., 2018. The Rohingya Crisis. Making the transition

from emergency to long-term development. Overseas Development

Institute. Available at:

https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-
documents/12134.pdf.[Accessed 12 July 2018].

Walton, M.J., 2013. “Myanmar needs a new nationalism.” Asia Times, May

20. Available at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-02-

200513.html [accessed 19 July 2018]

Weissbrodt, D. and Collins, C., 2006. The human rights of stateless persons.

Human Rights Quarterly, pp.245-276.

World Bank, 2018. World Bank country and lending groups. Available at:

World Bank.

https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-

bank-countryand-lending-groups. [Accessed 11 July 2018].

Yegar, M., 1972. The Muslims of Burma. O. Harrassowitz. Wiesbaden: Otto

Harrassowitz, 1972. Print.

Yhome, K., 2018. Examining India’s Stance on the Rohingya Crisis.

Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/.../326317165_Examining_India's_stance_on_

the_Rohing... [Accessed 17 July 2018].

Zarni, M. and Cowley, A., 2014. The slow-burning genocide of Myanmar’s

Rohingya. Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J., 23, p.684-754.

Zaw, H. Y., 2015. “Myanmar’s President Signs Off on Law Seen as

Targeting Muslims.” TheReuters. August

31, 2015. Available at: www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-politics-

idUSKCN0R011W20150831. [Accessed 14 August 2018].

Zin, M., 2015. Anti-Muslim Violence in Burma: Why Now?.

Social Research: An International Quarterly, 82(2), pp.375-397.

Zolberg, A.R., Suhrke, A. and Aguayo, S., 1989. Escape from violence.

New York. Oxford University Press.

Zolberg, A.R., Suhrke, A. and Aguayo, S., 1992. Escape from violence:

Conflict and the refugee crisis in the developing world. Oxford University

Press.

87
View publication stats