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:

By Janeen Sawatzky, OBA Member
Worcester College, Oxford
Originally published 27 April 2012 by The Oxford Student (reprinted with permission)

It is easy to believe that Burma’s battle for democracy may soon be over. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s historic trip in late 2011 and David Cameron’s call for the suspension of economic sanctions this week while visiting Burma are clear indications that the international community is taking notice of the incredible progress unfolding in the Southeast Asian nation.

That this once pariah state, condemned for its egregious human rights abuses and violent suppression of pro-democracy activists, may finally see over 50 years of western isolation come to an end is nothing short of astonishing. What is more astonishing, however, is the rapid pace at which the nominally civilian government is enacting political reforms.

_By Hkanhpa Sadan
Joint General Secretary of the Kachin National Organisation (KNO) & friend of the OBA
Originally published 26 April 2012 by The Oxford Student (reprinted with permission)

On Friday 13th April, David Cameron became the first British Prime Minister to visit Burma since independence in 1948.  He said the UK would argue in favour of suspending – not lifting – all EU sanctions on Burma, except the arms embargo. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi also backed this position. Since the UK has been the only EU member arguing to keep sanctions in place, sanctions are likely to be suspended, probably after the meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 23rd April 2012.

The day before the PM prepared for his historic visit to Burma, he praised President Thein Sein for his “courage” in introducing political reforms.  He stated: “If Burma moves towards democracy then we should respond in kind, and we should not be slow in doing that. But, first I want to go and see for myself on the ground how things are going.” I am sure that David Cameron saw signs of progress, especially “on the ground” in Yangon and central Burma, which is the main majority Burman populated area of the country. I am from Kachin State, in the north of the country, but for me, my relatives and my friends, change “on the ground” has not yet come. In fact, in recent months the situation has deteriorated dramatically.

_By Josh Powell
Queen's College, Oxford
December 2011

Ethnic minorities make up roughly 40% of the Burmese population, yet many of these minorities have been sorely oppressed for decades. Despite ‘full autonomy in internal administration for the frontier areas’ promised in the Panglong Agreement of 1947, this has never materialised, and many groups, among them the Karen, Shan and Kachin, have been attacked ruthlessly as part of the government policy of ‘Burmisation’: an attempt to maintain the geographical and cultural integrity of Burma, preventing minorities from establishing autonomy; a policy which has also led to widespread religious persecution such as that of the Muslim Rohingya people. Burma’s ethnic national tribal groups have suffered countless human rights abuses: millions have been displaced, both internally and into neighbouring countries; many, including children have been enslaved as forced labourers or soldiers; rape has been consistently used as weapon of war; civilians have been deliberately targeted by the army; and many villages have simply ceased to exist.