Rohingya Muslims: what is happening in Myanmar? (Kan 2024)
På trods af dannelsen i 2016 af en ny demokratisk valgt regering i Myanmar (Burma) ledet af Nobels fredsprispristagent Aung San Suu Kyis National League for Democracy, forblev situationen uhyggelig for landets forfulgte muslimske mindretal, kendt som Rohingya. Som en indikation af sin forpligtelse til at finde en løsning på problemerne udnævnte regeringen i august 2016 den tidligere FN-generalsekretær Kofi Annan til leder af en rådgivende kommission, der skal foretage vurderinger og give anbefalinger.
Hvem er Rohingya?
Udtrykket Rohingya blev ofte brugt, især i de internationale medier, for at henvise til et samfund af muslimer, der generelt var koncentreret i to nordlige townships i Myanmars Rakhine (Arakan) stat, skønt de også kunne findes bosiddende i andre dele af staten og landet såvel som i flygtningelejre i Bangladesh. Det anslås, at Rohingya udgjorde omkring en tredjedel af befolkningen i Rakhine-staten, hvor Rakhine-buddhister udgjorde en betydelig del af de resterende to tredjedele.
Brugen af udtrykket Rohingya blev meget anfægtet i Myanmar. De politiske ledere i Rohingya har fastholdt, at deres er et særskilt etnisk, kulturelt og sprogligt samfund, der sporer dens aner så langt tilbage som i slutningen af det 7. århundrede. Imidlertid afviste den bredere buddhistiske befolkning generelt Rohingya-terminologien, idet de i stedet henviste til dem som Bengali, og betragtede samfundet stort set sammensat af ulovlige indvandrere fra nutidens Bangladesh. Under folketællingen i 2014 - den første, der blev gennemført på 30 år - traf Myanmar-regeringen en 11. timers beslutning om ikke at opregne dem, der ville identificere sig som Rohingya, og ville kun tælle dem, der accepterede den bengaliske klassificering. Flytningen var som svar på en truet boykot af folketællingen fra Rakhine Buddhists.I processen gentog regeringen sin tidligere forpligtelse til at overholde internationale folketællingsstandarder.
As with the rest of Myanmar’s postindependence borderlands that were historically multiethnic and politically fluid, Rakhine state had also suffered from decades of centre-periphery imbalances. On the one hand, Buddhist Rakhines had long felt oppressed by the Burmans, the country’s largest ethnic group, and on the other hand, they perceived the Muslim population to be a palpable threat to their cultural identity. Within the Myanmar context, race and ethnicity were rigid constructs that determined legal, political, and social relations. The debate surrounding the Rohingya terminology had, as such, paralyzed meaningful government recognition of the predicament of the Rohingya community.
Statelessness.
Almost all Rohingya in Myanmar were stateless. They were unable to obtain “citizenship by birth” in Myanmar because the 1982 Citizenship Law did not include the Rohingya on the list of 135 recognized national ethnic groups. The law had historically been arbitrarily applied in relation to those, such as the Rohingya, who did not fall strictly within the list of recognized ethnic nationalities. The legal status of a large majority of Rohingya was rendered even more precarious when Pres. Thein Sein unexpectedly announced in February 2015 the expiry of “white cards,” a form of temporary identity documentation held by many within the Rohingya community.
Intercommunal Violence and Displacement.
Two waves of intercommunal violence between Buddhist and Muslim communities in Rakhine state in June and October 2012 led to the displacement of approximately 140,000 people—the large majority of whom were Rohingya—to camps around the state capital (Sittwe) and surrounding townships. According to government figures, the conflicts resulted in 192 deaths, 265 injuries, and the destruction of 8,614 homes, with the impact disproportionately borne by Muslim communities. Human Rights Watch, as well as other nongovernmental organizations, claimed that the October 2012 violence was a coordinated campaign targeting the Rohingya.
Legislative Restrictions.
Following the 2012 violence, other developments, including a series of proposed legislative measures (some of which were passed by Myanmar’s parliament), resulted in further restrictions on the limited rights of the Rohingya. Although those developments had a nationwide application, they were understood to affect mostly the Rohingya community.
In September 2014 an amendment to the 2010 Political Parties Registration Law came into force; the legislation effectively disallowed the Rohingya to form and be members of political parties. Less than six months later, the Constitutional Tribunal delivered an opinion that prevented noncitizens from voting in any national referendum. The legal implication of the decision, formalized in June 2015 with amendments to the election laws, was that Rohingya, who were considered noncitizens, would not be allowed to vote in the 2015 general elections, even if they had cast their ballots during the 1960, 1990, and 2010 elections. The development also represented a final and absolute curtailment of the political rights of the Rohingya.
In November 2014 a package of draft laws popularly termed “laws on safeguarding race and religion” was submitted in the parliament for debate. The bills, which were initially proposed in 2013, were to an extent premised on anxieties over Myanmar’s being surrounded by highly populated countries, a factor that was believed to potentially affect the country’s demographics; on fears that Buddhist women were being coerced or tricked into marriages by and with non-Buddhist men; and on stereotypical views that Muslim families were polygamous and that consequently many children were being born. The bills were conceived as a necessary measure to protect Buddhist women and to address the perceived high population growth rate in Rakhine state.
Between May and July 2015, two of the four bills that permitted the state to regulate birth spacing and family planning, as well as to police the practice of religion within multireligious families, were passed by the parliament. The Population Control Healthcare Bill, which was aimed at Muslim women, could potentially be used to force women to space their births at least three years apart.
