The Rohingya Issue and Diplomacy
Indonesia and Myanmar are old friends. Indonesia’s founding father, President Soekarno, once called Myanmar – or Burma, as it was known at the time – a “true friend”. This was because Burma was one of the handful of Asian countries that recognized Indonesia’s sovereignty in the first years of its independence.
As the story goes, the Dakota Seulawah RI-001 presidential aircraft, which was donated by the Acehnese people to the newly independent Indonesian government, was on its way back to the country in early December 1948 after a routine check in India, when it was denied entry into Indonesian airspace because of the Second Dutch Military Aggression. Pilot Wiweko Supono then flew the airplane to Burma.
At the country, Indonesia established its first commercial flight service, Indonesian Airways – the forerunner of Garuda Indonesia – with a single airplane: the Dakota Seulawah. It was also from Burma that Wiweko successfully flew the Dakota past the Dutch air blockade over Indonesia to smuggle weapons, communications equipment and medicines to Aceh.
Seventy years later, the stories of Indonesia and Myanmar are intertwined once more as a result of the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar’s Rakhine state. The conflict involving the Rohingya people in Rakhine has triggered frictions in Indonesia that reverberate in domestic religious and political spectrums.
The latest incident was triggered by a deadly attack on Myanmarese police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militant group. The group has conducted similar attacks on police posts several times under the pretext of protecting Rohingya Muslim minorities from oppression by Myanmar’s authorities.
The latest attack on Friday, Aug. 29, resulted in the deaths of 12 police officers and dozens of ARSA militants.
In response, the Myanmarese military deployed its forces to the area, triggering a new wave of violence. The military retaliation has been deemed disproportionate and out of control. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people scrambled to save their lives by fleeing to Bangladesh, the nearest neighboring country. At the border, however, the Rohingya people were turned back by Bangladeshi authorities.
The United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) said that thousands of Rohingya people fled to Bangladesh while thousands of others were left stranded on the Myanmar-Bangladesh border – most of whom are women and children. These are those “who live in no-man’s land”. Their place of origin denies their existence while their destination country drives them away with aggression.
As a matter of fact, the ARSA has never demanded independence or separation from Myanmar to establish their own sovereign state. They are different from rebel groups, such as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Their ultimate motive is to attract global attention to their plight for safety. The problem is, despite having resided on their lands for centuries, they still live in fear and under oppression.
The Rohingya have never been formally accepted as Myanmarese as they are ethnically Bengali and Muslims. A few years ago, the Rohingya people were slaughtered by the Myanmarese people, especially those of the hard-line Buddhist community. The Rohingya took refuge in a number of safer places. Now, the Rohingya people are suffering under the oppression of the Myanmarese authorities, or in this case, the Myanmarese military. It is ironic that they cannot live in peace on their own lands.
In comparison with the Muslim Patani group in southern Thailand, which has always been embroiled in conflicts with the Thai government and people, the Rohingya people are more moderate, in that they wish merely to be fully recognized as Myanmarese. However, they are rejected and subjected to discrimination by the greater Myanmarese community. Compare this to Thailand’s Pattani people, who have always claimed themselves as separate from the state and culture of Thailand, as they are Malay and Muslims, despite being Thai citizens, de facto and de jure.
The military aggression against the Rohingya has been excessive. It is unsurprising that many have claimed that a humanitarian tragedy has occurred in Myanmar, especially against the Rohingya people. Some have even said that the Myanmarese military’s actions amount to ethnic cleansing, which is considered genocide by the 1998 Statute of Rome and a crime against humanity.
Indonesia’s role
Such is the situation. The moment news about the conflict arrived in Indonesia, voices of concern and solidarity were raised en masse. The people are urging President Jokowi to act swiftly in helping the Rohingya in the name of Islamic solidarity. The Rohingya story in Indonesia is generally framed as the slaughter of Muslims by the Myanmarese military. Some politicians have even urged President Jokowi to recall the Indonesian Ambassador in Yangon as a sign of protest. Others have urged President Jokowi to take a harsh stance.
These requests and demands are not only unrealistic; they are also unproductive. Indonesia’s diplomacy in approaching the Rohingya issue must emphasize soft diplomacy (persuasion). The problem is that the current regime in Myanmar is one that is transitioning towards democracy. It is thus highly sensitive to foreign intervention.
Furthermore, in observing Myanmar’s current internal condition, it is evident that there are many groups that dislike the Rohingya people. It is from this perspective that we need to respond the position of Aung San Suu Kyi. She is no longer a stateswoman, but a politician who needs to maintain the approval ratings among her constituency in the hope that they will vote for herself and her party.
Making demands through formal state or government channels is highly sensitive. The moves made by our foreign minister, Retno Marsudi, must be diplomatic and cautious ones. Obtrusion, let alone blame, must be avoided at all costs.
If we make the wrong move, the Myanmarese government could respond along the lines of: “This is our domestic affair. We understand that all countries have full sovereignty. It is on this sovereignty that any foreign intervention is inexcusable.” If this happens, our wish to take action beyond persuasion would become futile.
Three years ago, along with the Indonesian Red Cross under Jusuf Kalla’s leadership, I personally witnessed how extra caution must be taken alongside good intentions in distributing aid to the Rohingya people. At the time, the Myanmarese Red Cross as our partner always reminded us how sensitive the involvement of foreigners was in resolving the Rohingya issue. At that time, the Rohingya had been attacked by hard-line Buddhists. Now, with the Rohingya facing the Myanmarese military, political sensitivities are surely higher, as it involves Myanmar’s territorial jurisdiction.
Oftentimes, diplomacy must be conducted silently and without fanfare. The sense of dictating to others must be avoided. Diplomacy is measured by its achievements and not by its processes– and certainly not, if the process involves violence and intimidation. A strategy based on universal humanitarian values is the most graceful way. We should not beat the drums of war. Violence and intimidation will only beget more of the same.
HAMID AWALUDIN
Indonesian Law and Human Rights Ministry, 2004-2007; Lecturer at Faculty of Law, Hasanuddin University