Dealing with the Rohingya crisis: The relevance of the general assembly and R2P
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Author | Mohammad Tanzimuddin Khan,Saima Ahmed |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2057891119868312 |
| Subject Matter | Research articles |
Research article
Dealing with the Rohingya
crisis: The relevance
of the general assembly
and R2P
Mohammad Tanzimuddin Khan
Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Saima Ahmed
Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abstract
This article explores the causes of the United Nations’ inertia in dealing with the Rohingya crisis
since its beginning in August 2017. Here we argue that the United Nations’ inherent structural
weaknesses contribute to its indecisiveness in taking any effective and timely measures when faced
with a humanitarian crisis. We further argue that weaknesses of the United Nations have their
origins in the creation of the organization and its sole dependency on the decisions of the five
permanent members of the Security Council for any intervention in humanitarian crises. In the
conclusion, we consider the prospect of the General Assembly in light of the globally recognized
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine as an alternative to resolve this inherent weakness and the
obstacles to taking effective and timely measures in dealing with Rohingya-like situations.
Keywords
Myanmar, R2P, refugee, Rohingya, United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
Introduction
In August 2017, approximately 500,000 Rohingya population from Myanmar took refuge in
Bangladesh, for the third time,
1
making their total number there more than one million (Khan and
Corresponding authors:
Mohammad Tanzimuddin Khan, Professor, Department of Interna tional Relations, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000,
Bangladesh.
Email: tanzim04@gmail.com
Saima Ahmed, Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh.
Email: saima.ahmed.ir@gmail.com
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2020, Vol. 5(2) 121–143
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2057891119868312
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
Ahmed, 2018). The Rohingya refugee crisis brought with it the old debates over terminologies and
legal issues specifically regarding their status as refugees. The concerned media, the international
organizations including the United Nations (UN), and the states came up with different kinds of
terminologies to describe the crisis—all of which have various legal connotations. Some called it
“forced displacement” (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2017), some a “brutal operation” or
“genocide,” and others termed it a case of “text book ethnic cleansing” (Associated Press and
Agence France-Presse, 2017).
Undoubtedly, the “pseudo-democratic” Myanmar government unleashed an unfathomable
cruelty and inhumanity on the Rohingya community in terms of their race, ethnicity, and religion.
The Rohingyas are no longer citizens of Myanmar because of the 1982 Citizenship Law. They are
now aliens for their dual identity of being Muslims and a “Bangla-speaking” minority living in
Rakhine State located close to Teknaf subdistrict of Bangladesh. However, the Rohingyas trace
their ancestry back to the seventh century in Rakhine State, which was formerly called Arakan
Kingdom when there was no “nation-state” named Burma/Myanmar (Encyclopedia Britannica,
n.d.).
The victims’ narratives of rape, torture, killings, and forced expulsions have grabbed the
attention of the media and humanitarian organizations ever since the outbreak of violence. In
response to the crisis in August 2017, the UN humanitarian aid agencies immediately started
offering their services. But the Myanmar government stopped their access to Rakhine State (Khan
and Ahmed, 2018). The UN then had to discontinue its activities of supplying food, medicine, and
water to the victims of the atrocities living there (Khan and Ahmed, 2018). In a recent report, the
UN Fact Finding Mission
2
confirms its “conclusive evidence” that the Myanmar army was
involved in “the gravest crimes under international law” (Peterson, 2018). The mission found that
they were involved in “killing indiscriminately, gang-raping women, assaulting children and
burning entire villages” (Peterson, 2018). These crimes committed against the Rohingya minority
group made the intervention of the powe r-ridden UN Security Council (UNSC) warranted in
dealing with the refugee crisis. But the UNSC appeared to be hesitant to deal with the issue despite
having a significant number of relevant legal frameworks and UN resolutions. The UN also seemed
very reluctant to offer its good offices and mediation roles of the Secretary General to prevent and
ensure peaceful settlement of the issue as mandated in the UN Charter when the crisis unfolded
initially. UN Secretary General’s special envoy for Myanmar indeed made her first visit to Myan-
mar in June 2018, almost a year after the crisis (United Nations’ Secretary General, 2018).
Given these scenarios within the UNSC in particular and the UN in general, we argue that
structural weaknesses inherent in the Charter and the politico-economic interests of China and
Russia, the twopermanent members of the UNSC,are broadly rendering the organization ineffective
to deal with the Rohingya crisis. In so doing, we explain why thisinertia exists within the UNSC in
tackling the Rohingya crisis and, under the given circumstances, we identify the United Nations
General Assembly (UNGA) as the most appropriate organ, with its legal capacity, to play a mean-
ingful legaland institutional role. By the sametoken, we also focus on the UNGA’srecently adopted
principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to tackle Rohingya refugee crisis-like global situations.
The principle of R2P, indeed, interprets the sovereignty of a nation-state differently. It views
sovereignty in terms of a global responsibility to protect all communities living within a particular
territory from mass killing and human rights violations (Park and MacDiarmid, 2016: 39).
Against this backdrop, this article is divided into two broad sections. In the first section, we
reflect on the institutional weaknesses and causes of the inertia in the UNSC to protect the
Rohingyas in Myanmar, and its inadequacy to respond to the refugee crisis. In the second section,
122 Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 5(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial