Brief Version of Rohingya Paper

“The Future Geopolitic of ASEAN: Rohingya Case”

by Jeanne Francoise

“United Nations has taken 20 years to apologize its failure to recognize and
prevent the Rwandan genocide, the international community should not repeat the
same mistake in Myanmar.”
Prudentienne Seward, 1994 Rwandan genocide survivor (Southwick, 2015, p.150)

Historical Background
This paper, which is written for Call For Paper in South East Asia Conference on
Rohingya in May 18-19, 2016 at Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB), Bogor, has an
hypothesis that the future geopolitic of ASEAN, to be more united and to be more
integrated, is the best approach of humanitarian diplomacy on Rohingya by
applying law enforcement for Myanmar government and international community
to recognize Rohingya people’s nationalism identity, at a time, by protecting human
rights of Rohingya people as human-being with full of dignity in the universe.
Regarding of some refugee cases that Security Council of United Nations is
actively conducting now, surprisingly, that if we type the word “Rohingya” on
UNSC website, the result is zero. Rohingya case is widely connected as “internally
displaced persons issue” by the experts, but nowadays, due to the detail
observations by UN bodies and NGOs, Rohingya case is more than IDP issue. It is
also the issue of conflict resolution and geopolitic.
It is the issue of conflict resolution because we have to refer to some
historical facts that can elaborate, clara et distincta, with the situations nowadays,
to create reliable policies of conflict resolution, especially reconciliatin within
Rakhine areas. The issue within Rakhine areas, sadly, is already politized since
1962 when General Ne Win made political campaign about Myanmarization 1 of
Myanmar people, that means “only Myanmar can be Myanmar citizen” (Fisher,

1
In 1962, General Ne Win started the “Burmanization campaign” creating the slogan “Burma is for
Burmans”, discriminating all the ethnic groups and the religious minorities not identified with the
majority Buddhist religion (Gaetano, 2013, p.3).

1
2013). The integral repression for Rohingya people then followed. First of all, on
the national census, they are categorized as “Bengali people” just because their
unique language and physical appareance are more similiar to Bengali people, than
to other 135 Burmese ethnic groups2.
Then, Rohingya people who are about 800.0003 men nowadays (Phillips,
2013, p.31) and most of them are Moslems, still discriminated by the majority-
Buddhist Myamnar government on some substantive rights, such are rights of
politic, economy, and social, including marriage right 4 and having families. Until
this paper is being written, the one and only official identity for Rohingya people is
UNHCR ID 5, eventhough many of them hardly gain it, so sometimes they are
creating the false UNHCR ID, by perforce.
The tension anti-Rohingya people is getting higher and higher while some
close-minded Myanmar politicians related them as potential threat for Myanmar
country, based on data that Islamic radical ideology give some donations in the
name of Islamic solidarity (ukkuwah islamiyah), to create ASEAN under khilafah
and the second paranoid is to change Myanmar to be an Islamic country, based on
an interesting fact that it does exist an Islamic radicalist group in Rakhine and many
Rohingya people work for them 6.

2
Statelessness can become root cause of forced displacement. The United Nations estimates the
Rohingya population in Myanmar at 800,000, but the government does not recognize them as one
of the country's 135 ethnic groups, denying them citizenship (Gaetano, 2013, p.4). Burmanese
population (Buddhists) 55-68%, Karen 9-14.6%, Shan 8-9%, Rakhine 3.5-5%, Mon 2-8%, Chin 2-
6.3%, Kachin (1.5-3.1%), Rohingya 2% of the country (Selway, 2015, p.326-327).
3
Si les Nations Unies l’évaluent à 800 000, certaines organisations non gouvernementales (ONG)
parlent, elles, de deux millions de personnes ; à ce niveau la communauté rohingya représenterait
donc non pas une minorité mais une majorité, la population d’Arakan étant de 3,8 millions de
personnes en 2010 (Leider, 2013, p.71).
4
If a Rohingya couple wants to get married, they need to seek permission much in advance and each
side needs to pay anywhere between 50,000- 3,00,000 kyats. Even then, permission is not
guaranteed. Men and women are often arrested and sentenced to prison for unlawful marriages
(Gupta, 2013, p.9).
5
A Press Release by PIARA Director, Hari Aryanto: “Factual Conditions of Rohingya People in
Indonesia”. PIARA is a private sector-NGO, founded in Indonesia, to observe, help, and give
advocates services to the Rohingya people in Rudenim in Medan and Riau.
6
The economic factors may drive the radicalization in some of the Rohingya organizations, rather
than adherence factor to the religion itself. As known, the Rohingyas are paid if they join the group.
RSO is one of the organizations that is believed recruiting many Rohingyas. The Rohingyas was
given the most dangerous tasks in the battlefield, for instance, clearing mines. Bertil Lintner in Asia
Times on 2002 mentioned, the recruited Rohingya were being paid 30,000 Bangladeshi taka (US$
525) on joining and then 10,000 taka per month ($175). RSO will pay the families of recruited

2
 This fact must not be seen by only fact. Acedemicians must analyze more
deeper than what were being reported on online news. Some analysis to counter
Myanmar government’s paranoid is that based on historical fact, Rohingya people
can not gain proper wages7 to feed their families, also based on a confirmation by
Rohingya people that they never have intention to create Myanmar Islamic country,
what they want is only to gain equal human rights as human-being8.
Rohingya case is also the issue of geopolitic because Rohingya people is
still continuing to flee9 from the repression government of Myanmar to other
countries, especially to the countries of ASEAN, that are geographically closed to
Myanmar border, such are Bangladesh 10, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia 11. It
was noted that about 20-30 million Rohingya people flee from their countries in
2000 (Loescher, 2001, p.52). 13 years later, in 2013, 35.000 left the country by boat
(Southwick, 2015, p.131).
Bangladesh’s view on Rohingya should not be a guideline of Human Rights
because Bangladesh government said that facilitations and aid for Rohingya people

Rohingya, which killed in action with the offering of 100,000 taka ($1,750) (Pramadya, 2014, p.86-
87).
7
Since 1950s, Rakhine people and Rohingya, both, demanded autonomy from central government,
but only Rohingya rejected as “Myanmar people” since legal Law in 1982, followed by unfair wage
of labours, mariage restrictions, and two-child policy. In 3 decades, Rohingya classified as “Bengali”
in census paper (Southwick, 2015, p.139).
8
Abu Tahay: “There is no organization trying to establish Rohingya State. We are only looking for
ethnicity and to qualify for citizenship” (Galache, Cover Story: “Fear, loathing, and lies in Rakhine
State”, Bangkok Post, September 2, 2012).
9
Besides becoming victim to direct violence, around 35,000 people have turned to the high seas to
escape to neighboring countries out of which around 785 have died by drowning (Refugees
International). A United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report estimates that
in December, 13,000 Rohingya arrived by boat in Malaysia in 2012 and refers to the ―sailing
season‖ as ―unprecedented‖. Thai authorities announce 6,000 Rohingya, including women and
children, arrived on Thai shores since October 2012 (Gupta, 2013, p.5).
10
250.000 Rohingya moslems went to Bangladesh border to escape from Myanmar Army (CMAJ,
2013). Since 1970s, 167.000 Rohingya went to Bangladesh. Now, 29.000 Rohingya in Bangladesh
still stigmatized as “illegal immigrants”. Three refugee camps, but one single room (30 square feet)
for 16 people. Up to 500.000 became homeless in Bangladesh (Omi, 2011, p.58).
11
Since the middle of May 2015, over 3,000 refugees who had been cast adrift in the Andaman Sea
by human traffickers have been temporarily resettled in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand, with an
estimated 2,600 awaiting rescue. Most of these refugees are Rohingya asylum seekers from
Myanmar, with the remainder being economic migrants from Bangladesh. The UNHCR estimates
that 88,000 Rohingya asylum seekers and Bangladeshi economic migrants have crossed the
Andaman Sea through human trafficking networks since early 2014, with 25,000 of them having
left in the first quarter of 2015.2 The number of refugees making the journey tripled in 2012 when
anti-Rohingya persecution intensified in Myanmar. An estimated 1,000 refugees have lost their lives
in the passage, with 300 of them having perished in the first half of 2015 (Lim, 2015, p.1).

3
could be taken as “pull factor” to make more Rohingya come to Bangladesh, so
that the government prohibited all humanitarian services12 (Southwick, 2015,
p.141). Recently became, there are 300 000 Rohingya people in Bangladesh,
200.000 in Pakistan, and 100 000 in Thailand (Leider, 2013, p.71).

Image source: Al Jazeera

Research Methods
To analyze the roots of problem of Rohingya case, this paper use qualitative
research method by analyzing secondary data from UN and ASEAN Charter,
government official reports, analysis of the experts from 40 academic journals, 3
research papers, 4 books, and online news with the view of 2 (two) theories;
Polemology theory and Conflict Resolution theory.
Polemology theory by French sosiologist Gaston Bouthol and Conflict
Resolution theory by Johan Galtüng. Polemology theory is used to analyze the role,
challengings, opportunities, and limits of United Nations and ASEAN based on UN
Charter and ASEAN Charter in Rohingya case, by remembering the Myanmar’s
right of sovereignity.

12
King Abdullah ordered $50 million of aid sent to the Rohingyas, in Saudi Arabia's capacity as a
“guardian of global Muslim interests.”91 Council of Ministers of Saudi Arabia says that it
“condemns the ethnic cleansing campaign and brutal attacks against Myanmar's Muslim Rohingya
citizens” and it urged the international community to protect “Muslims in Myanmar (Lian, 2015,
p.18).

4
 Conflict Resolution theory will be used to analyze the right definition for
Rohingya people, with the comprehensive view about structural factors of
Rohingya case. Conflict Resolution theory will also analyze the mapping of conflict
actors and their political or economic relations, conflict prevention options, reliable
peace-building policies, law enforcement, and the future of long-lasting
reconciliation.

Analysis
Based on the Polemology theory about the role of United Nations and ASEAN on
Rohingya case, firstly, Rohingya people themselves must be identified correctly
based on UN Charter and ASEAN Charter, whether they are legal refugees, illegal
immigrants, or internally displaced persons or mostly known as stateless men,
because different identification would be followed by different policies.
Based on the historical background on the previous paragraphs, we can
briefly assume that Rohingya people is stateless men. This condition actually is
more complex to be solved, because UN and ASEAN should coordinate with all
countries to make a good diplomacy on Rohingya case. All policies should be under
UN Charter, as the backbone of international law, that loudly prescribed on
Polemology theory.
One of remarkable Charter to Rohingya case is Article 55 and 56 of UN
Charter, that requiring all member states to pledge themselves to cooperate for the
promotion, universal respect for and observance of, human rights, and fundamental
freedoms. Regarding to a UN body on human rights itself, The Human Rights
Council in its resolution A/HRC/10/35 (Gaetano, 2013, p.4):
“Calls upon all States to refrain from taking discriminatory
measures and from enacting or maintaining legislation that would
arbitrarily deprive persons of their nationality on grounds of race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, property, birth or other status, especially if such
measures and legislation render a person stateless”.
Due to the status of Rohingya people as stateless men, UN can not work
alone and for that, the most possible regional organization to help Rohingya people
is ASEAN. In 2009, ASEAN has given institutional recognition to human rights, at
its 15th summit held in Thailand in 2009, the ASEAN inaugurated the ASEAN

5
Intergovernmental Human Rights Commission (Baiq, p.9). ASEAN passed on the
Rohingya issue to the Bali Process for People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons
and Related Transnational Crime, a multilateral mechanism created in 2002 by
Australia and Indonesia for increased cooperation between regional governments
and law enforcement agencies on human trafficking and smuggling. In a diplomatic
level, the Rohingya issue has not been placed on the formal agenda of ASEAN for
more than 20 years that makes no solution to the problem. Many underlying reasons
why ASEAN facing difficulty in handling the Rohingya issue. On substance, non-
interference principle remains the core of diplomatic practice within ASEAN
(loc.cit.).
ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, established by
ASEAN Head of States in 2009, in March 2013 held closed-door meeting, but it
indicates no further actions from this meeting to Rohingya plight (Southwick, 2015,
p.147). This indicates that there were already a good political will from ASEAN
officials to address Rohingya case in more serious way. On the Polemology theory’s
view, this action based on ASEAN Charter, especially Article 1 (7). The Article
1(7) of the ASEAN Charter states that one of the purposes of ASEAN is:
“To strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule
of law, and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental
freedoms, with due regard to the rights and responsibilities of the
Member States of ASEAN”.
Based on Polemology theory, the role of ASEAN is highly demanded by
international community because ASEAN countries could potentially urge
Myanmar government to prevent similiar 2012-ethnic conflict based on ASEAN
Charter.
On the second theory used in this paper is Conflict Resolution theory, first
of all, to analyze the patterns of ASEAN diplomacy, year by year, to the vertical
conflict or assymetric conflict (Francis, 1994) of Rohingya people vs Myanmar
goverment, and to analyze who are the conflict actors from both sides and to find
answer what are the conflict roots of 50 years unsolved-Rohingya case.
Those analysis perhaps could be spoken out with the well-known 2012
incident13. In Sittwe, capital of Rakhine, because of that Buddhists-Muslims

13
It was http://www.narinjara.com/main/ website that first published the news of the death of a
Buddhist girl allegedly robbed, raped and murdered by Muslims in a village little known to outside

6
violence, 167 Myanmar people killed, 10.000 homes destroyed, and 140.000
Myanmar people, most of them Rohingya people, displaced (CMAJ, 2013, p.1).
This incident was a critical swat for ASEAN, because two biggest religions spreadly
practised in ASEAN countries are Islam and Buddhist 14; a confirmation of Sun Tzu
thought that conflict would harm both parties; and also a trigger for more Myanmar
IDP flee from the Myanmar.
That statistic also add Southeast Asia data of IDP crisis, where some 54,000
people, largely Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, undertook the risky journey
across the Bay of Bengal, and a total of 540 deaths were recorded last year. The
trend looks set to continue in 2015. On Tuesday, 21 April, less than a week before
ASEAN leaders convene in Kuala Lumpur for the 26th ASEAN Summit, a small
wooden boat carrying 78 Rohingya men, women and children arrived on the shores
of the of Penang. The group, which included a 2-month-old baby, had spent eight
days at sea, and many arrived weak and suffering from dehydration and other health
conditions (Fan, 2015, p.1). 5.000 shelters already built for them in Rakhine, but
children age 6-59 months, 14.4% suffered accute malnutrition (CMAJ, 2013).
Besides of the Rohingya case, the “statelessness problem” itself is
particularly acute in Southeast Asia. Out of 12 million stateless people around the
world, 797,388 are found in Myanmar and 542,505 in Thailand (Gaetano, 2013,
p.4). This is also a challenge for ASEAN. A High Level Task Force (HLTF) 15 does
not reach an ultimate diplomacy, because only Indonesia and Thailand supports HR
framework for ASEAN acts.
The other challenge for ASEAN is that ASEAN is not part of ROs. If
European Union has NATO, ASEAN does not have any unity-military action, nor

world in Rakhine, an official name for Arakan, state in June 2012. The state media had the first time
in Myanmar published three names of the alleged accused along with their religious affiliation using
the term Kalar referring to their Islamic faith. Subsequently, this fabricated news spread through
Facebook and a bus carrying Muslims was stopped on the highway in TaungGok where no less than
ten people were brutally hacked to death by the Buddhists. Later, postmortem on the victim found
that she was not raped. As the result of the riots between two different communities, 200 died in
clashes and more than thousands displaced, mostly Rohingyas (Sulaiman, 2014, p.141).
14
In Southeast Asia region, Buddha and Islam are two largest religion in this area; Southeast Asia
has 618 million in population, which consists of 42% or 240 million Muslims and 40% of them
(around 150 - 190 million) are Buddhists. Buddhism has taken its root in Southeast Asia from the
seventh - eleventh centuries, in the other hand, Islam came to Southeast Asia later on the 12th-15th
centuries (Pramadya, 2014, p.86).
15
A High Level Task Force (HLTF) does not reach an ultimate diplomacy, because only Indonesia
and Thailand supports HR framework for ASEAN acts (Poole, 2015, p.359).

7
political judgement to deliver military intervention in Rohingya case. Considering
of that challegings and limitations of ASEAN soft-diplomacy, this paper urges all
ASEAN bodies to continue their best efforts to help Rohingya people within
Myanmar, outside Myanmar, and those who are still fleeing by boat at the sea,
including the imposing of all possible ASEAN policies to prevent Myanmar
government threatening Rohingya people, such are economic sanctions or policy of
repatriation, while there must be a high level conference of ASEAN leaders to meet
each other to discuss more about the future of ASEAN geopolitics, that must be
more united and more integrated to prevent such conflicts in ASEAN. This agenda
of integrity, including Human Rights Body, must be included on ASEAN Charter
more clearly.

Summary
In a fundamental geopolitic assumption, a geographical destiny of countries create
unity and integrity solutions of the regions to solve a problem of a country member,
for example Rohingya case. Rohingya question could be viewed as national
problem of Myanmar, but based on Polemology theory, this case is highly potential
creating the credibility of ASEAN itself of handling human rights and IDP case to
the international community, specifically Rohingya case could be an unique
standpoint for investors to invest in ASEAN.
Based on Conflict Resolution theory, no matter how hard the intellectuals
or academicians discuss Rohingya case in their mind in many academic approachs,
we can not abandon that they are humans, just like us, and therefore while we are
eating good foods and hearing a good music at the comfort sofa, someone from
Rohingya could be hurt again.
In brief conclusion, while ASEAN leaders do what can they do, we also can
do what can we do as students or academicians, such are give donation to the official
immigrant-funding institutions, for example Dompet Dhuafa and also making some
hashtags on the Social Media to make #Rohingya people would never be forgotten
in this digital era.

Keywords: ASEAN, Rohingya, Polemology, Conflict Resolution, UN

8
References
Abid, Ahmed. 2010. “Reporting Human Rights in the (South & South East Asia) regions: The case
of new boat people in Asia”, Panel: Reporting Human Rights in the International Media
Conference ‘Reporting New Realities in Asia and the Pacific’, Hong Kong April 25-28,
2010. Thailand.
ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint. June 2009. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint 2025
ASEAN Charter
Baig, Assed. 2013. “Stop Violence Against Rohingya Woman: Is the Burmese Military keeping
Rohingya Women as Sex Slaves?”, The Express Tribune, Januari 13th, 2013.
Barros, James. 1990. PBB: Dulu, Kini, dan Esok. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Boutros-Ghali, Boutros. 1992. An Agenda for Peace. New York: United Nations.
Caliptra, Ghibiel Fido. 2013. “Pelanggaran HAM Berat atas Kaum Muslim Rohingya di Myanmar”.
Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.
CMAJ. 2013. “Fears of Humanitarian Crisis in Western Myanmar’s Camps for Internally
Displaced Persons”, CMAJ, July 9, 2013, 185 (10).
Coclanis, Peter A. 2013. “Terror in Burma: Bhuddists vs Muslims”, World Affairs, Nov/Dec 2013.
Dignite International et le Collectif HAMEB [Halte Au Massacre En Birmanie]. 2015. Communiqué
de Presse: “Rohingyas: Stop au prochain Génocide!”. Paris.
Djamily, Drs. Mizwar., Drs. Mulyadi Abdullah, dan Drs. Badril Saleh. 1986. Mengenal PBB dan
170 Negara di Dunia. Jakarta: PT. Kreasi Jaya Utama.
Egretau, Renaud. 2010. “Intra-European Bargaining and the ‘Tower of Babel’ EU Approach to the
Burmese Conundrum”, East Asia (2010). Springer Science.
Fan, Lilianne. 2015. “Turning the Tide: Addressing ASEAN’s Refugee Crisis”, 24 April 2015.
Gaetano, Silvia di. 2013. “How to protect the rights of the stateless Rohingya people in Myanmar?”,
February 10, 2013. Bangkok: The Asian Resource Foundation.
Galache, Carlos Sardia. 2012. Cover Story: “Fear, loathing, and lies in Rakhine State”, Bangkok
Post, September 2, 2012.
Gupta, Anamika. 2013. “Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims: Whose Responsibility to Protect?”,
October 16, 2013. European Peace University.
Hazri, Tengku Ahmad. 2015. “The Rohingyas and the Paradox of ASEAN Integration”, Bulletin on
Islam and Contemporary Issues, No.25, March-April 2015. Malaysia.
Islam, Prof. Syed Serajul. 2004. “Arakan’s History of 350 Years”, Conference of Conflict and
Conflict-Resolution in the Muslim World (of IIUM) in Kuala Lumpur, 18-19 February, 2004.
Jacob, Prof. Dr. T. 1992. Polemologi: Bacaan Tentang Perang dan Damai. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
James, Helen. 2004. “Myanmar’s International Relations Strategy: The Search for Security”,
Contemporary Southeast Asia 26 No.3 (2004): 530-533.
Kania, Mariusz. 2016. Hegemony, Ideology, and Subject: Discourse of Power in Myanmar.
Warsawa.
Kuntowijoyo, Dr. 1999. Pengantar Ilmu Sejarah. Yogyakarta: Yayasan Bentang Budaya.
Larsson, André. 2015. “An Oasis of Freedom Grows in Burma”, International Spectrum, March-
April 2015.
Lee, Ronan. 2016. “The Dark Side of Liberalization: How Myanmar's Political and Media
Freedoms Are Being Used to Limit Muslim Rights”, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations,
March 15, 2016. England: Routledge.
Leider, Jacques P. 2013. “Des musulmans d’Arakan aux Rohingyas de Birmanie : origines
historiques et mouvement politique”, Géopolitique, Diplomatie, No.60, Jan-Fév 2013.
Leitich, Keith A. 2014. “Decoding the Past: The Rohingya Origin Enigma”, Third Annual
Southeast Asian Studies Symposium, Keble College, University of Oxford, 22-23 April
2014.
Lian, Thang Deih. 2015. “Religious Conflict Between Theravada Buddhist Monks and Rohingya in
Myanmar: A Christian Appcroach”.
Lim, Alvin Cheng-Hin. 2015. “The 2015 Refugee Boat Crisis In Southeast Asia: Humanitarian And
Security Implications – Analysis”. Eurasia Review.
Loescher, Gil. 2001. “The UNHCR and World Politics: State Interests vs Institutional Autonomy”,
IMR, Volume 35 Number 1 (Spring 2001): 33-56. New York: Center for Migration Studies.

9
Loose, Olivier. 2013. Academic Paper: “The Statelessness of the Rohingya in the Western Rakhine
State of Myanmar: a Mediation Analysis”. Brussels, Belgium: University of Kent.
Lopez, R. R. (2015, June 16). The Rohingya Crisis: Notes on ASEAN, Power, and Identity.
(Department of Anthropology and Sociology - Ateneo De Manila University) Retrieved from
Verstehen: http://verstehenonline.org/2015/06/16/the-rohingya-crisis-notes-on-asean-
power-and-identity/

Magnawa, et al. 2016. A Research Paper: “The United Nations’ Actions Towards the plight of
Rohingya Refugees”, Philosophy of Social Sciences Course, Consular and Diplomatic
Affairs degree program, School of Multidisciplinary Studies, De La Salle - College of Saint
Benilde, School Year 2015-2016.
Mathew Davies. 2015. “What Next for the Rohingya in Myanmar? Suu Kyi’s Balancing Act after
the Election”, December 6 2015.
Nurdiana, Mei. 2015. Skripsi: “Peran Indonesia dalam Penyelesaian Konflik Rohingya”. Malang:
Jurusan HI FISIP Universitas Muhammadiyah.
Omi, Saiful Huq. 2011. “Portfolio: Fleeing Burma”, World Policy Journal.
Phillips, Alexandera. 2013. “The World’s Blind Spot: Shedding Light on the Persecuted”, World in
Review, Harvard International Review, Fall 2013.
Poole, Avery. 2015. “The World is Outraged: Legitimacy in the Making of the ASEAN Human
Rights Body”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.37, No.3 (2015), p.355-380. ISEAS-Yusof
Ishak Institute.
Pramadya, Teguh Puja&Jusmalia Oktaviani. 2014. “The Contribution of the Organization in
Myanmar’s Rohingyas: Beyond the Ethnic-Religious Conflict and its Implications Towards
South-East Asia”, International Conference on ASEAN Studies, October 1st-2nd 2014.
Yogyakarta: ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gajah Mada.
Pusat Advokasi Hukum dan HAM Aceh. Rumusan Hasil Diskusi Publik Tentang Rohingya:
“Minoritas Yang Tertindas Banda Aceh”, tanggal 11 April 2013.
Selth, Andrew. 2008. “Even Paranoids Have Enemies: Cyclone Nargis and Myanmar’s Fears of
Invasion”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.30, No.3 (2008), p.379-402. ISEAS.
Selway, Joel. 2015. “Ethnic Accomodation and Electoral Rules in Ethno-Geographically
Segregated Societies: PR Outcomes Under FPTP in Myanmar Elections”, Journal of East
Asian Studies 15 (2015), 321-360.
Shoemaker, Rachel. 2012. “Myanmar: What Investors Need To Know”, Risk Atlas, ForeFront.
Simbulan, Karen Pimentel. 2013. “A Legal and Structural Analysis of the Violence in Rakhine State
against the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar”, Myanmar: Profiling the 969 Movement , Bibhu
Prasad Routray IPCS Commentary No. 4029, 10 July 2013.
Sojourn Symposium. 2014. “Being and Becoming Kachin: Histories Beyond the State in the
Borderworlds of Burma”, Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2014,
by Mandy Sadan. Oxford: Oxford University Press and the British Academy.
Southwick, Katherine. 2015. “Preventing Mass Astrocities Against the Stateless Rohingya in
Myanmar: A Call For Solutions”, Journal of International Affairs, Spring/Summer 2015,
Vol. 68 No.2. New York: The Trustees of Columbia University.
Sulaiman, Mohd Mohiyuddin Bin Mohd. 2014. “Monks, Media, and Muslims in Myanmar”,
International Conference on ASEAN Studies, October 1st-2nd 2014. Yogyakarta: ASEAN
Studies Center Universitas Gajah Mada.
Thomsen, Matias. 2015. “The Obligation Not To Arbitrarly Refuse International Disaster Relief: A
Question of Sovereignity”, International Disaster Relief.
United Nations Charter
United Nations. Pengetahuan Dasar Mengenai Perserikatan Bangsa-bangsa. Jakarta: Kantor
Penerangan Perserikatan Bangsa-bangsa.
White, Judith. A. 2004. “Globalisation, Divestment, and Human Rights in Burma”, JCC.
Wibisono, Adhe Nuansa. Opini Pribadi: “ASEAN, Rohingya, dan Krisis Kemanusiaan di
Myanmar”. Jakarta: The Habibie Center.
Zin, Min. 2013. “You Can’t Go Home Again: An Exiled Journalist Returns to A Changed Burma”,
In Box, Foreign Policy.

10