The Boat People: Charting Statelessness and Security of the Rohingya

 

The Rohingya people are an ethnic Muslim minority in Myanmar. The Citizenship Law of 1948 and other discriminatory policies enacted by the government has prompted a wide-scale exodus of the persecuted minority. The refugees have sought shelter in countries like Bangladesh, India, Indonesia among others. This large-scale migration was in lieu of renewed violence in 2017 when Myanmar’s armed forces claimed it was in order to restore stability the Rakhine. Myanmar a predominantly Buddhist state has repeatedly denied citizenship to the minority Rohingyas. Reports suggest that the government has essentially institutionalized discrimination against the Rohingya population. A report published by UN investigators in August 2018 accused Myanmar's military of carrying out mass killings and rapes with "genocidal intent"(BBC News, 2020).

Rohingya refugees help each other after crossing the Bangladesh-Myanmar border. 

(Source: Reuters)  

Moreover, it can be said that the Rohingya refugee crisis is an imperative issue of forced migration, state-sponsored violence, violating fundamental rights and finally the deeply discriminatory practices perpetuated by the supposed security provider i.e., the state itself.  The crisis informs us that the security of the Rohingya populace is being threatened, but there is also an underlying question pertaining to the relativity of security concerns at stake here. Ideally, in a realist conception of international politics, the state protects its citizens from external threats, specifically the armed forces or the military of a state are the guarantors of security. However, since its realist foundations, the entire concept of security has changed and evolved. This is mostly owed to the changing dynamics of the international political system itself. The external vision of securing the state against external military threats, linked tightly to strategy and policy, was facilitated by increasing levels of domestic safety and public order, generated by the growing administrative power of the state (Krause & Williams, 2018). If we apply this preliminary understanding of security to the Rohingya crisis two things become clear: the state is the presumed security agent; additionally, however in this case state security interests are not in line with the individual personhood of the Rohingya people. Thus, the relative concept security or insecurity is often a complex issue of contingencies.

Perhaps, therefore there is a need for broadening the scope of security studies beyond the mainstream, realist conception. The schematic framework that we use to deduce the relativity of security, most importantly the referent object is called into question. As Krause and Williams (2018) have suggested while the mainstream view of security studies was always contested, it also pointed out that in the name of “state security” the security of individual citizens is most often threatened. Furthermore, this paradox is even starker in situations where the state—in the name of “national security”- declares certain individuals or citizens as threats. In many places, the major threats to individuals come from the security institutions of their own states (from the intelligence and “security” services, or from militaries aligned with one social group, political faction, or regime) rather than from any external sources. The military junta in Myanmar with the government has forced the Rohingya population to either seek refuge elsewhere or live in fear in their supposed ‘home’ country.

Another important facet that we need to consider when situating the Rohingya crisis in the larger framework of relative security, is the aspect of multiple security threats and referent objects. Whether the Myanmar state is in fact, a security agent (in that it is minimising a security threat by driving the Rohingya out of the country) or whether it is evidently an active security threat for the Rohingya people remains to be an overarching question and point of debate. Perhaps, again the broadening and deepening of security studies to the individual or community in this case points to the relative nature of the concept of security.

We also need to consider the fact that the Rohingya population differs from the Buddhist majority ethnically, linguistically and religiously (Albert, 2020). The socio-cultural-political dimensions of the relativity of security are equally imperative. The focus of traditional security studies on states and interstate war fails to capture many of the most intense dynamics of contemporary security relations: in the areas of national identity and culture; with the security of groups, individuals among others (Krause & Williams, 2018).  This aspect speaks to the larger thrust of security studies in today’s times as well, in replacing and removing the security agents as prime actors it aims to adopt a more holistic framework. However, we also need to remember that as much as security as a concept is changing with the times, the prime and most pivotal remains the state. To envision a world order in which the state does not occupy the proverbial ‘biggest’ seat at the table is difficult to imagine.

Pertaining to the Rohingya crisis, the international response has been a mixed bag. With countries like Bangladesh being home to more than nine hundred thousand Rohingya refugees are in the country, according to the UN refugee agency. Many live in crowded camps in Cox’s Bazar district, now home to the world’s largest refugee camp (Albert, 2020). With many countries either shunning illegal migration or being inadequate in providing refuge, the future of the Rohingya people seems to be in murky waters. Moreover, Advocacy groups including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arakan Project, and Fortify Rights continue to appeal for international pressure on Myanmar’s government (Albert, 2020). 

Thus, the onus of security in most cases falls on the state. With the future of the Rohingya growing more and more uncertain with each day, perhaps one needs to acknowledge the underlying disparities with the way we understand security. Both to protect and to ‘secure’ so to say. Possibly, one way to challenge the prevailing social order would be take a leaf out of Robert Cox’s critical theory. Critical theory does not take institutions and power relations for granted but calls them into question by concerning itself with their origins and how and whether they might be in the process of changing (Cox, 1981). Critical theory is embedded into a historical framework. To deny the Rohingya people as being a part of Burmese history is also a crucial aspect one needs to consider when contemplating the notions of security. 

Bibliography 

1. Albert, E. (2020, January 23). The Rohingya Crisis. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/rohingya-crisis 

2. BBC News. (2020, January 23). Myanmar Rohingya: What you need to know about the crisis. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561

3. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501

4. Krause, K., & Williams, M. (2018). Security and “Security Studies.” The Oxford Handbook of International Security, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198777854.013.2