Written by: Karen Hargrave, OBA Vice President and MSc student at the Oxford Refugee Studies Centre

In February of this year Libyans went to the polls to elect a constitutional drafting committee.  They went to the polls in Tripoli. They went to the polls in Benghazi. And, in the case of over 7,000 Libyans, they went to the polls in Germany, Canada, the UK, Jordan; the list goes on.

These elections were just the latest in a growing trend of out-of-country voting processes (OCV) in transitional settings. In a list of countries that includes Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan and now Libya, OCV has provided an opportunity for individuals who have fled conflict and persecution to have a say in the future of a home state to which they might one day return. Of course, sustainable and democratic peace has not yet been achieved in many of these contexts. But simply put, at its heart OCV represents political inclusion across borders.

OCV comes with enormous mechanical difficulties, not least the question of how to register and administer a spatially disconnected electorate. But its promise is enormous. Which raises the question: when Burma goes to the polls in the much-hyped 2015 election, will the global Burma diaspora go too?

From informal conversations I’ve had with people involved in Burma’s on-going peace process, the answer seems to be, “it’s unclear”.  It’s unclear precisely because this isn’t a question on anyone’s lips. Which needs immediate remedy. It’s symptomatic of a broader trend we’re seeing at the moment in how Burma’s refugee “issue” is being treated as something to be dealt with if and when the country’s myriad internal political issues are resolved. Of course there’s benefits to this stance: it supports the very valid point that pressure should not be put on refugees to return to their country of origin, if at all, until the political problems they fled in the first place have been addressed in full. But the downside is that we risk ignoring the very real fact that Burma’s refugee issue is part of the political issue. Does it not seem pertinent, then, that Burma’s refugees should have a say in shaping at least this part of the political solution?

If the case for considering OCV isn’t clear yet, bear in mind that, should real political transition crystallise in Burma, many of the 100,000 refugees living in the Thai-Burma border camps will likely have little option but to return to their former homes. Funding on the border has been drying up for years. While it states that conditions are not yet ripe for return, UNHCR’s 2013 framework for ‘Supporting Durable Solutions in South-East Myanmar’ makes abundantly clear that repatriation is envisioned as the primary solution in this case. If refugees are to be encouraged to return in the future, then it seems only fair that they should be given the opportunity now to have a say in the political landscape that they will face. Not to mention that a mere glance at Burma’s diasporic documentation, news and advocacy projects reveal this population in exile as deeply intelligent individuals holding well-crafted political opinions.

Burma’s national elections are a year away, and OCV may yet prove an imperfect solution. But now is time to start asking the question: who will go to the polls in 2015? And, perhaps more importantly, who will be excluded from Burma’s nascent political community?

Written by: Regina Paulose, J.D., LLM, International Crime and Justice and author at acontrarioicl.com

Nearly a year ago, I wrote an article outlining reasons why the ICC should take action in Myanmar (also known as Burma) in order to stop continued religious and ethnic violence towards the Rohingya. During 2013, not surprisingly, the anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar has continued.[1] In fact, violence has spread beyond targeting the Rohingya and against the larger Muslim population.[2] Although, the majority displaced from the violence are still the Rohingya.

The human rights abuses against the Rohingya in Myanmar have continued, which includes but is not limited to extrajudicial killings, random imprisonment,[3] recruitment of child soldiers, violence against women, and policies which endorse statelessness[4] of the minority group. The government has not taken any significant actions to prevent anti-Muslim groups, such as the 969 Buddhists from continuing on their killing spree.[5]

What do the great nations have to say about such behavior? They have rewarded Myanmar’s “democratic reforms” with trade, despite pleas from the human rights community that such measures will continue anti-Muslim abuses.[6]Unfortunately, the ability of Western countries to sweep this violence under the carpet is par for the course.

Anti-Muslim violence and bigotry is on the rise around the world. In the European Union, violence and bigotry towards Muslims continues.[7] Restrictions on practicing Islam (such as wearing the head scarf) continue to be justified throughout Europe. In the EU, some say that the resurgence of the “far right” and their inflammatory rhetoric in mainstream political culture have incited anti-Muslim sentiment and have continued anti-Semitic rhetoric as well.[8]Some link hate speech directly to hate crimes.[9]  In Russia, nationalists have taken to the streets to demonstrate their anger towards Muslim migration, the sentiment shared with other Neo Nazi groups throughout Europe.[10] In the United States, during 2012, Muslim hate crimes saw an increase compared to recent years and the number may be larger because many of the crimes go unreported.[11] In China, persecution of the Uighur Muslims continues because of potential “terrorist” or “separatist” activity.[12]

In Myanmar, we have had a humanitarian issue on our hands. Now, it is beginning to spiral into other problems. Thai officials are now being accused of trafficking the Rohingya.[13] Interestingly, the idea that the Rohingya may be victims of human trafficking (instead of ethnic persecution) has gotten the attention of the United States and the United Nations. Since Myanmar does not afford the Rohingya citizenship, the persecution of the Rohingya leaves little options in where they can seek refuge. Bangladesh does not seem to have the ability to continue to provide safety to the Rohingya, because of internal security concerns, such as terrorists hiding within Rohingya refugee camps.[14]  India also has been met with a large influx of Rohingya, due to brutal persecution in Myanmar.[15]

Democracy has not saved the Rohingya, but will it ever?

Practical steps need to be taken in order to stop this calamity. The international community should begin with asking Myanmar to become a party to the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its accompanying Protocol of 1967.[16] This should also include requesting Myanmar to make a “pledge” to prevent statelessness.[17] Beyond acceding to these international treaties and conventions, the criminal acts that are being committed need to be addressed. In November 2013, the US Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., projected images of the Rohingya to raise awareness regarding the “unfolding tragedy.”[18] It is clear that crimes against humanity are occurring and despite “democratic reforms” the government is endorsing and/or participating in this violence.[19]

If the ICC is looking to make its mark in Asia, start in Myanmar.


                                                                                                                                  Click 'Read More' to view Footnotes:

Name and location withheld.

With a picturesque backdrop of the mountains and jungle, you could – in places –almost be forgiven for forgetting that this is one of the nine refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border. 

Having been established two decades ago, along with its population, the camp’s economy and size has also expanded significantly. Inside, you can find shops, tea shops, restaurants, hair dressers, a hospital and a large market. If you have money, you can buy almost everything you need, from clothes and shoes to books, paper, mobile phones, kitchen utensils and DVDs. There’s an internet café and there are even motorbikes, bicycles and one or two cars, as well as a motorbike ice-cream seller.

Yet if you don’t have money, you’re left to live on the meagre rations of white rice, yellow beans, oil, charcoal and, approximately once every three months, some soap. And I can’t even begin to describe how bad the ration rice tastes. I didn’t realise rice could taste quite so bad; this was like eating white gravel.

Although for much of the year water is readily available and is piped through the camp, it’s not drinking water; it can only be used to shower with and to wash clothes and dishes. I was lucky enough to be living where donors have provided a UV water filter, but even so, I arrived at the end of the rainy season, so we didn’t had any fresh water to put through the filter. That wasn’t a problem for me – it was easy enough to buy bottled drinking water and I had the money to do so – but my students told me that they don’t really drink anything when it hasn’t rained.

One day, one of my students took me to visit her dormitory. It was a 55 minute walk/hike away, sometimes along busy, wide, flat mud roads with shops and houses on each side, and sometimes climbing on narrow, slippery paths through jungle. It was a typical dormitory, housing around 40 students. The buildings were typical bamboo buildings, but they were nicely built and fairly sturdy. I was cooked a nice lunch and then I asked where the toilets are. Initially, I couldn’t understand why that question had caused such a fuss – there are toilets built by the French NGO Solidarités throughout the camp. But then the students showed me their toilets. The building had been dismantled and the squat toilets were covered with planks of wood. They are full, I was told, and they had been for a couple of weeks or so, but they were going to start making new ones on the following Saturday.