MYANMAR’S ‘ROHINGYA’ CONFLICT: MISCONCEPTIONS AND COMPLEXITY

Myanmar’s Rohingya conflict is arguably the most sensitive and complex issue facing the country, both in terms of the extent of physical and social destruction, and the impact on Myanmar’s domestic reform and international standing. The scale of human suffering is mind-numbing, the reactions of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Myanmar authorities baffling. However, too much international commentary is reductionist, flattening multiparty and multifaceted sociopolitical dynamics into a simple narrative, which is detrimental to understanding and responding to the conflict. This paper attempts to make sense of some of this complexity, firstly by addressing several common misperceptions of the conflict, then analysing it from a variety of theoretical perspectives. The first misconception is that this conflict is not new, but significant antecedents date back at to at least World War II, if not before. The second is that this conflict is not merely about state oppression of a despised and vulnerable ethno-religious minority, but rather a multipolar conflict with conflict and violence, driven by mutual existential fears and deeply historical grievances on all sides, by at least three key actors. This multipolarity needs to be better understood but outsiders seeking resolution of the conflict. And finally, the third is that this conflict is not primarily about the denial of citizenship and statelessness of the Muslims, as significant as this is, but about definition of the political community in Myanmar and the politics of inclusion/exclusion in governance. Framing this as an ‘intractable conflict’, this paper then examines the drivers of conflict from the perspective of an ethnic security dilemma, a double minority complex, and the political economy, arriving at conclusions about the nature of the conflict and sounding a final warning about a potential moral hazard arising from the way international support is framed and offered.     

Refugees,Islam, and the State: The Role of Religion in Providing Sanctuary in Malaysia

ABSTRACT

Malaysia has a mixed track record in providing Muslims with refuge, yet it increasingly lays claim to being an Islamic country. This article charts a history of the refugee engagement Malaysia has had based mainly on a shared regional and/or shared religious affiliation (Sunni Islam). I argue that the recent Malaysian history of refugee treatment presents a case for Muslim solidarity, but one tempered by a prevalent racism in Malaysia against people from the Indian subcontinent. Nonetheless, Islam provides an alternative history for providing protection to people in need. The UNHCR has pursued this approach in Muslim majority countries that are not signatories to the refugee convention in the hope of carving out a complementary protection space based on Islamic law and practice. This article traces these attempts and situates them within the Malaysian sociopolitical terrain, drawing out the possibilities and limits to such an approach.