The impact of securitization of Rohingya refugee by Indonesia and Malaysia

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The impact of securitization of Rohingya refugee by Indonesia and Malaysia



Table of contents

List of Abbreviations

Introduction

Chapter 1. Research Problem and Question

1.1 Relevance and Importance of the Research

1.2 Aim of the Research

1.3 Methodology

1.4 Structure

Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

2.1 Theoretical Framework

2.2 Literature Review

Chapter 3. Indonesian Refugee Policy and Securitization of Rohingya Refugee by the State Actor

3.1 Indonesian Refugee Policy: Overview

3.2 Influx of Rohingya Refugee to Indonesia

3.3 Rohingya Refugee as Existential Threat in Indonesia: Securitization Speech Act

3.4 Indonesian Government Policy Response

3.5 Civil Society Response

Chapter 4. Malaysian Refugee Policy and Securitization of Rohingya Refugee by the State Actor

4.1 Malaysian Refugee Policy: Overview

4.2 Influx of Rohingya Refugee to Malaysia

4.3 Rohingya Refugee as Existential Threat in Malaysia: Securitization Speech Act

4.4 Malaysian Government Policy Response

Conclusion

Bibliography



List of Abbreviations

APBN Anggaran Penerimaan dan Belanja Negara

(State Budget)

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

FPI Front Pembela Islam (Islamic Defender Front)

HuJI Harakat ul-Jihad al-Islami

IOM International Organization for Migration

JAT Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid

JMB Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh

JSR Jesuit Refugee Service

KONTRAS Komisi Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan

(The Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence)

LeT Lashkar e Taliban

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

UN United Nations

RELA Malaysian People's Volunteer Association

RSD Refugee Status Determination

RUDENSI Ruang Detensi (Immigration Detention Room)

TOC Transnational Organized Crime

TRC Tim Reaksi Cepat (Quick Response Team, a SAR team)

UNHCR United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees



Introduction

Most refugee movements today are caused by conflict. And contemporary conflicts are mostly of an internal, inter-communal nature (Gil, 1992). Refugee movements are usually sudden and unplanned. Most of them left their homes immediately after either seeing people executed around their houses or when bombs or other factors caused it difficult to get food or shelter. Many refugees are at times unable to transfer assets from their countries of origin to their countries of asylum, and thus turn to be a problem or burden on the host countries and the host communities in particular.

The responses of host countries to these mass influxes have varied greatly, both between states and, for single governments, over time and by refugee group. Some governments have received refugees with kindness, providing them with help and guaranteeing their safety. Others have tried to prevent refugees from entering or have treated them harshly, restricting their movements and even endangering their safety (Jacobsen 1996, Aristide 1992).

The majority of countries hosting large numbers of refugees are developing and poor countries. These countries hosted two thirds of the global population of concern to UNHCR. The host government often largely ignores refugee-hosting communities in remote areas. Developing countries that host refugees for protracted periods can experience long-term, economic, social and environmental consequences (UNHCR Standing Committee 1997).

The presence of refugees sometimes aggravates the already prevailing economic, environmental, social and, at times, political difficulties in these countries. Often such countries are confronted by a combination of all four of these factors. Moreover, in many refugee situations, problems are aggravated when refugees are a substantial proportion of the local, if not national population.

Many developing countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, also face changes in social and cultural as the impact of refugee influx. Many factors influence the policy response of a host country when it faces a refugee influx. This is why even a neighboring countries facing the same refugee issues could response differently or similarly.

In Myanmar, escalating inter-communal conflict in Rakhine State in June 2012 resulted in internal displacement of more than 150,000 Rohingya people as well as outflows to other regional countries. Recently in 2015, several boats packed with hundreds of desperate migrants have been caught up in a game of international ping-pong between South East Asian countries including Malaysia and Indonesia. Essentially the Rohingya refugees - joined by a number of Bangladeshi economic migrants - are being passed between countries that don't want them. The UN has called on nearby countries Malaysia and Indonesia to respect international law and offer help to those stranded at sea, but South East Asian countries have been using reports of the presence of economic migrants as an excuse to turn the so-called 'boat people' away. After continuous hard protests coming from around the world, there has been agreement between Malaysia and Indonesia (and Thailand) to temporarily resettle the refugees under condition that after one year the refugees will be resettled to third countries by the international community or international organizations.

Map 1: Rohingya Migration Route in Southeast Asia

Status of May-July 2015 Disembarkations UNHCR - Mixed Maritime Movements in South-East Asia - 2015, http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/regionalupdates/UNHCR%20-%20Mixed%20Maritime%20Movements%20in%20South-East%20Asia%20-%202015.pdf

Country of disembarkation	Officially disembarked	Remaining (detained)	Bangladeshis repatriated	Rohingya movement
	Rohingya	Bangladeshi	Rohingya	Bangladeshi
Malaysia	375	735	375 (375)	116 (116)	622	~200 confirmed to have arrived from Indonesia
Indonesia	999	821	310	26	743	~700 believed to have left Indonesia



Chapter 1. Research Problem and Question

The main problem is the lack of domestic framework from both refugee-hosting countries (Malaysia and Indonesia) to resolve the Rohingya refugee crisis. Although Malaysia and Indonesia are not signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, the principle of non-refoulement is part of customary international law and is therefore binding on all states. Under this principle, all countries in Southeast Asia are obligated to protect Rohingya from being returned, including through returns that are informal such as pushbacks out to sea.

This lack of legal framework for refugee policy is closely related to process of securitization that happened in the domestic politics in both countries. Susan Kneebone, “ASEAN and the conceptualization of Refugee Protection in Southeastern Asian States” dalam Ademola Abass dan Francesca Ippolito, Regional Approches to the Protection of Asylum Seekers: An International Legal Perspective (England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2014) Hal.295-320 As the main actor in the international security logics, state has a very significant role in solving the refugee problem. Barry Buzan, Ole Weaver dan Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis (USA: Lynne Rienner Publisher, 1998) Hal. 21

International migration is controlled by national policy of states and various international agreements. Furthermore, the idea of "alien individuals" as a threat to state is not a new issue. According to Bourbeau, there are three factors that states consider as danger that coud threaten their security, one of them is huge influx of migration. Philippe Bourbeau, The Securitization of Migration: A Study of Movement and Order (USA: Routledge, 2011) Hal. 1-2

This situation triggered countries within the region competing to expel and stop refugees and asylum seekers from entering their countries. The problem is when security is defined by the state as a securitizing actor in a traditional approach as only national security, and not including the human security, in this case the protection of refugees, these refugees would be in a very vulnerable postion. Moreover, the state-centric approach is still dominating the international relations in the Southeast Asia region. Amitav Acharya. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and The Problem of Regional Order. (London: Routledge, 2001) Hal. 1-3

The national security (or state security) versus human security debate has long been debate between state and civil society in the refugee studies. The state argue that refugee influx often causes negative impacts to the host countries in economic, social and national security and consequently it is a threat. Therefore, the decision makers and the military officials within the government often try to securitize the issue of refugee by giving comments and statements in media or officially to socialize the idea that refugee is a threat that need to be kept away from the country in order to protect society. These are defined as speech act. The speech acts by securitizing actor (state) are analysed in this research.

The spreading of Rohingya refugee inflix in Southeast Asia has impacted the ASEAN regional security stability. Mathew and Harley wrote that ASEAN countries are the directly affected countries from the security threat caused by the Rohingya ethnic problem. Penelope Mathew and Tristan Harley. 2014. Refugee Protection and Regional Cooperation in Southeast Asia. The Australian National University.

This study analyses the securitization as policy responses of Indonesia and Malaysia towards Rohingya refugee and the comparative study of both policy responses.

I limit my research period from 2012 - 2015. 2012 is when the conflict between Rohingya people and the Buddhist people of Myanmar escalated and Rakhine State riots happened. After this incident, flow of Rohingya refugees to both countries started to increase. 2015 is the year where ongoing migration of thousands of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar and Bangladesh to Malaysia and Indonesia escalates to its peak in terms of numbers of refugees entering those countries and also in terms of number of stranded or drowned boats.

Based on the problem explained before, the research questions are:

- Has the `Rohingya refugee crisis' in 2015 been framed by Indonesia and Malaysia as a security issue, and if so, in what ways?

- What is the impact of securitization of Rohingya refugee by Indonesia and Malaysia?

1.1 Relevance and Importance of the Research

Most of the research on refugee in Southeast Asia are focusing on the two aspects: human rights & protection of refugees and (lack of) the development of regional framework for refugee protection. Since ASEAN as the regional organisation has maintain its principle of non-interfering and respect of states sovereignty, the focus should be targeted towards state-centred policy and comparative study to get better understanding of the refugee issue in the region.

Most of the research on Rohingya refugee crises are focusing on the conflict analysis that force them flee from Myanmar. My research will focus on the policy of two countries (Indonesia and Malaysia) on how they response with securitization to resolve the Rohingya refugee crisis. This will be interesting to explore because none of them are signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol which are the international legal basis for the protection of refugees. These two countries also serve different function to the Rohingya refugee where Malaysia is a destination country and Indonesia act as a transit country.

This research will provide comparison study of securitization policy responses between Malaysia and Indonesia as host countries on Rohingya refugee by looking at the securitization process. In one country for example, as burden or threat despite the shared identity. This study will also look at the perspective of security used by both governments dealing with refugees, whether they move towards the traditional approach of security, national security, or human security.

It will be useful to understand the differences and similarities of security concerns of the policy response between the host countries (Malaysia and Indonesia) on the Rohingya refugee crisis, to search for the reasons behind those differences and the impact of the securitization.

1.2 Aim of the Research

Qualitative comparative research on the securitization by Indonesia and Malaysia to resolve the Rohingya refugee crisis.

1.3 Methodology

- Primary Data research by interviewing key official member or relevant stakeholders (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NGOs concerned with refugee rights and advocacy in both countries, International Organizations, etc.)

- Formulate and launch secondary data research collection e.g. Questionnaire, interview the key important actors, and/or relevant key stakeholders.

- External research from the sources of key institution

- Analyse all collected data, summarize and prepare the crucial recommendation

1.4 Structure

The study is divided into five chapters.

Chapter one is introduction which includes research question, relevance of the research, aim of the research, methodology and structure.

Chapter two deals with the theoretical framework and the literature review which has been used in the analysis of the data including:

· Refugee

· Security, national security (traditional approach) and human security

· Securitization

· Securitization on refugee

Chapter three focuses on the securitization as a policy response of Indonesia to resolve Rohingya refugee crisis by analyzing the speech acts by the securitizing actor. I will also overview Indonesian refugee policy and explore the responses from Indonesian civil society.

Chapter four focuses on the securitization as a policy response of Malaysia to resolve Rohingya refugee crisis by analyzing the speech acts by the securitizing actor. I will also overview Malaysian refugee policy and explore the responses from Indonesian civil society.

Chapter five concludes the differences and/or similarities of securitization between Indonesia and Malaysia to the Rohingya refugee by which both state (Indonesia and Malaysia) based its policy response towards the Rohingya Refugee.



Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

2.1 Theoretical Framework

The concepts and theories used in this research are the refugee definition and rights according to the international law, security (national security vs human security debate), and securitization according to Copenhagen School.

Refugee

A refugee is a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva, 28 July 1951) 189 U.N.T.S. 137, entered into force 22 April 1954 [the Refugee Convention]; Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (New York, 31 Jan. 1967) 606 U.N.T.S. 267, entered into force 4 Oct. 1967 [the Refugee Protocol].

The term "forcibly displaced" refers to refugees, asylum seekers (seeking refugee status in host states), and internally displaced persons (IDPs) (UNHCR 2015a). As used in this research, the term "refugee protection" denotes more than the rights afforded refugees under the Refugee Convention and Protocol: it refers to the range of policies and programs to prevent and respond to forcible displacement. Jane McAdam dan Fiona Chong, Refugees: Why Seeking Asylum is Legal and Australia's Policies are not (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2014) Hal.37-50

In the international law based on 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, refugee is a legal status and recognised globally. Refugee status determination of the asylum seeker is under the authority of state who already ratified the convention and protocol of refugee, or UNHCR if the state has not ratified both. Gil Loescher, The UNHCR and World Politics: A Perilous Path (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) Hal. 21-50

If refugee is a legal status, asylum seeker and statelessness are group of human who experience a refugee-like situation, but have not acquired status as a refugee yet. In Southeast Asia, asylum seeker can be divided into two: legal and illegal condition. Legal condition refers to asylum seeker who is situated in a transit country and "saved" in immigration detention house, waiting to be granted refugee status by UNHCR. Illegal condition refers to person who escape their original country due to persecution and is already or on the way to the transit country illegally, undetected by the transit country or UNHCR therefore could not be processed as refugee.

In Southeast Asia context, statelessness is a concept that similar with the position that ethnic Rohingya face in Myanmar currently. They struggle to become the integral part of Myanmar, but on the other hand, the Myanmar government never consider them as part of the nation-state.

Security

The study of security at first was very state-centric and only focused on war and military. During the Cold War era, Realism and Neo-Realism perspective were dominant in the study of international relations.

The dismantling of rigidness in viewing security started in the end of Cold war era and getting massive when the Cold War ended. The dismantling is based on the concept of human security that not only viewed from the perspective of state and military, but also include far larger aspects such as disease, environment, migration, etc. Barry Buzan, People, States, and Fear : The National Security Problems in International Relations (USA: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983) Hal. 18-21

In response to the increasing barriers to refugees, which represent declining respect for the principles of international human rights, refugee advocates have gravitated toward the concept of human security, arguing that this concept offers a complementary source of protection to the right to asylum. The extent to which human security can effectively protect refugee rights in the face of state hostility is a matter of debate, however.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (1994) annual report argued that the concept of security has traditionally been narrowly construed `as security of territory from external aggression, as protection of national interest in foreign policy, or as global security from the threat of a nuclear holocaust'. The UNDP called on international actors to move beyond such conceptions toward `an all-encompassing [trans-boundary] concept of human security' (Human Development Report 1994, 3). The UNDP report offered an extensive definition of human security as: (a) safety from such chronic threats as hunger, diseases, and repression; and (b) protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life (Human Development Report 1994, 3). The report also outlined four essential characteristics of human security: (i) it is a universal concern relevant to people everywhere; (ii) the components of security are interdependent; (iii) human security is easier to ensure through early prevention; and (iv) human security is people-centered (Human Development Report 1994, 3).

The new human security paradigm quickly gained global traction, and a UN Commission on Human Security was established in 2000. Their highly anticipated report was released three years later. It defined human security as:

Protecting the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment. Human security means protecting fundamental freedoms - freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to take action on one's own behalf - that are the essence of life. It means protecting people from both critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means using processes that build on people's strengths and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the necessary building blocks for survival, livelihood and dignity. (The United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security 2003)

The commission suggested two general strategies to achieve human security: protection and empowerment (The United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security 2003).

As the language of human rights increasingly failed to protect asylum seekers, refugee advocates turned instead toward the concept of human security, believing that such an approach, which shifts the object of security discourse from states to people, could lead to a resurgence of international support for refugee protection (Edwards 2009, 778). The interests of asylum seekers have typically been seen as separate from national interests, except insofar as migrants were seen as threats to national security. Edwards, Alice. "Human security and the rights of refugees: transcending territorial and disciplinary borders." Mich. J. Int'l L. 30 (2008): 763.

Human security was initially conceptualized as a challenge to the hegemonic acceptance that the only form of security that is important was state security. Whereas state security privileges state actors and interests, human security makes people the focal point of security considerations (Paris 2001, 91). By expanding our understanding of security beyond the nation-state, advocates of human security attempt to force states to attend to the needs of their citizens. The co-optation of the term security is an intentional effort to persuade governments that people's security is state security, thus producing a greater attentiveness to issues of human rights and development. Refugees have historically made important economic, scientific, diplomatic, cultural, and ethical contributions to their new states.

Securitization

The concept of securitization was originated from the discourse of security. Securitization could be defined as a constructive process of an issue so that it would be an important security issue that we need to pay attention to. Barry Buzan. Ole Wжver, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), p. 25. It depends highly on the strength of the idea and the political actions of actor to disseminate an issue that would transform into security discourse. Securitization is an extreme version of politicization, so that in the name of security some actions are legitimized. Securitization is an approach to understand how actor perceive an issue that as a form of threat that could threaten individual, society and state security.

Diagram of Securitization Process

An actor does securitization action if the issue is considered as a problem or as an emergency that needs to be dealt comprehensively. The issue here can be divided into three (3) types. First, any public issue where state does not cope with the issue and the public did not include it in the public debate. It is non-politicized issue. The second is politicized issue which is part of public policy, requiring government decisions and resources allocation. Third is securitized issue where

the issue is framed as threatening and needs emergency actions by breaking the norms limit in the political procedure. Barry Buzan. Ole Wжver, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), p. 23-24.

Every securitization is composed of a political act (a political decision to articulate the threat in such a way as to convince the target audience) and a security act (by speaking the language of security and asking for the adoption of extraordinary counter- measures), namely a speech act. What is essential is the designation of an existential threat requiring emergency action or special measures and the acceptance of that designation by a significant audience. Barry Buzan, dkk., Op.cit. Hal. 27

An issue would be prioritised to solve if it concerns the state security and its people. Weaver stated that in security discourse, an issue is dramatized and presented as an issue of supreme priority; thus, by labeling it as security, an agent claims a need for and a right to treat it by extraordinary means. For the analyst to grasp this act, the task is not to assess some objective threats that "really" endanger some object to be defended or secured; rather, it is to understand the processes of constructing a shared understanding of what is to be considered and collectively responded to as a threat. Ibid. Buzan. 24-25

In order to conceptualize an issue to be an important security issue, there are some important things to focus on namely who is doing the securitization (securitizing actor), what is the reference of this securitization action (problem or issue that will be securitized), and the last one is what form the threat is. Securitization could be comprehended quickly and does not need indicator to implement. Ibid. Buzan 25.

According to Buzan, securitization is intersubjective and social construction. Ibid. Buzan 31. Securitization process is carried out by identifying issue, both political and non-political issue as security issue or in Buzan's words: "who securitize issues by declaring something-referent object-existentially threatened. Ibid. Buzan hal 36.

Successful securitization construction could be observed from three components. First, issue which really cause threat (existential threats), second is emergency action, and the third is changing behaviour of unit who is breaking free of rules and official political procedure. Ibid. Buzan 26. Indication of a successful securitization process could be seen when these assumptions accepted or not within the society. To be able to influence society, government must persuade them with various actions. Scott Watson. The Securitization Humanitarian Migration. Routledge, 2009. 19

The process of securitization is what in language theory is called a speech act. It is not interesting as a sign referring to something more real; Holger Stritzel. Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond. London School of Economics and Political Science, UK. Hal 3 it is the exclamation itself that is the act. Based on the concept of performative utterance by John L. Austin Austin, performative speech not only describes but also have the potential to produce new reality. Weaver stated that speech act is very interesting because it has the potential to erase old comprehension to build new comorehension in a context. Speech act manage or produce some issue with performative action (dramatic action).

To understand speech act, there are three types of units involved in the security analysis: Ibid. Buzan 36

1. Referent objects/audience: the threatened entity that needs to be saved, both society or the state in general.

2. Securitizing actor: actors, including government, bureaucrat, political elites, military official or certain group who perform the securitization of an issue by declaring that it is a security issue who threaten the referent object. In other words, securitizing actors are the ones doing the speech act to socialize an idea of existential threat to referent object/audience.

3. Functional actor: actor who gives dynamic effect in a sector and has significant influence in security policy-making. Although functional actors can not play a role to securitize an issue.

Applying the concept of securitization mentioned above will be useful to analyse the securitization of Rohingya refugee in Indonesia. The Rohingya refugee as a group of people who are stranded in Indonesia and assisted by the government. The government never explicitly mentioned that Rohingya refugee is a threat. The ministers only stated that they are concerned that there is a potential social clash between the refugees and the local society (referent object). In the next chapter I will explore further how the Indonesian government put this refugee issue as an important issue in Indonesia that needs serious steps to solve by asking assistance and responsibility from international organizatuions such as IOM and UNHCR.

This research assumes state and society as referent object. It indicates that the Rohingya refugee influx is an existential threat to state and society to legitimize their efforts to make an anti-refugee policy.

2.2 Literature Review

This chapter will review previous literatures containing some articles related to the issue which is raised by the researcher as the research article. The literature review will be arranged based on the description and explanation regarding Rohingya refugees which threatens the regional security in South East Asia which also threatens the security of Indonesia and Malaysia. I will review how the Rohingyas became refugees and how it potentially threatens the security in Southeast Asia region, including Indonesia and Malaysia. There are also some previous literatures regarding the securitization processes in some issues in other regions in the world. How national security becomes a factor in refugee policy from Jacobsen's framework will be explored combined with literatures on the relation between terrorism and refugee in other areas. The last part of the literature review is about securitization of refugees in other regions in the world.

In order to find out how could the Rohingya Ethnic People become Refugees, the researcher cited Muhammad Ibrahim's article, entitled The Story of Rohingya Refugee, published in the official website of Jesuit Refugee Service Australia on June 17th, 2015. Ibrahim is one of the Rohingya Refugees who has now received an asylum from Cambodia's government. In this article, Ibrahim, as one of the people who have ever experienced a tough life as one of the ethnic people who are not recognized as the ethnic group in Myanmar, told a story of how could he become a refugee. Ibrahim told a story that at the first time he left Myanmar to Thailand using a boat together with other refugees. In his opinion, to get in the boat, the refugees should pay the trip fare. Once arrived in Ranong, Thailand, they were arrested by the local authority due to incomplete document. Then, the Thailand's government sent them back to Myanmar using a non-engine boat consisted of 40 people. Once arrived in Myaudi, Myanmar, he bribed the Thailand's authority to bring them back to Mae Sot, Thailand. He stayed for several days in Thailand before a Moslem British man suggested him to go to Cambodia to get asylum there. Finally, Ibrahim got his refugee status officially from Cambodia's Government on August 2013. Muhammad Ibrahim 2015. The Story of a Rohingya Refugee. Accessed from http://www.jrs.org.au/the-story-of-a-rohingya-refugee/, on October 20th, 2015.

Based on the Ibrahim's article, we can observe the journey of Rohingya Refugees on several countries from their own perspective. the article can be used as the description regarding the spreading of Rohingya Refugees to several Asian Countries, such as Thailand and Cambodia.

The next review is from an article by K.C. Saha Learning from Rohingya Refugee Repatriation to Myanmar,. In his article, Saha explains the reason of the Rohingya Ethnic People to escape themselves from Myanmar. In his article, it is explained that, actually, Myanmar government does not recognize Rohingya as a part of Myanmar. Rohingya Ethnic People are assumed as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The Myanmar's Authority states that those who have escaped crossing the borders are the Bangladesh people who illegally entered Myanmar. Saha, K. C. "Learning from Rohingya Refugee Repatriation to Myanmar." Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees 19.3 (2000).APA

Furthermore, there is an article entitled Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar, written by Moshahida Sultana Ritu, an economist and a lecturer in Dhaka University, Bangladesh, in 2012. In his article, Ritu explains the reasons why did the Rohingya Ethnic People finally leave their homeland. Violence conducted to the minority Rohingya Ethnic Group is not a new issue. Persecution, abandonment, and repression have been occurred for a long time before the independence of Myanmar in 1948. According to Ritu, the escape of Rohingya Ethnic People from his country is due to the Ethnic Cleansing project conducted by Myanmar's Government. This article is rising from the killed Buddhist woman which according to the local authority, the woman was raped and killed by three Moslem teenagers. This case heated up the situation, the Buddhist Group burned houses of Rohingya people, killed men and drove the Rohingya people away. Then, the President Thei Sein stated that Myanmar should resolve this issue by driving the Rohingya people away or leave them to the UN. Moshahida Sultana Ritu 2012. Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar. Accessed from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/ethnic-cleansing-of-myanmarsrohingyas.html?_r=0, on October 20^th, 2015.

Meanwhile, according to the report of Human Right Watch, entitled Discrimination in Arakan, published in 2000, there were several things encouraged the flow of Rohingya Refugees to some countries. First, there is a Denial of Citizenship of the Rohingya Ethnic Group. There are three categories of citizenship, according to the Law of Burma of 1982. First, the citizenship obtained from the national races (Kachin, Kayah (Karen), Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine, Shan, Kaman, or Zerbadee) whose ancestors had been living in Myanmar since 1823. If there is someone unable to prove an evidence that his/her ancestor had lived in Burman before 1823, he/she will be classified as an association citizen and should propose an appeal to be a citizen in 1948. The third, naturalized citizenship. In order to be a naturalized citizen, someone should be able to prove an evidence that he/she or his/her parents has been entering and living in Burma before the independence of the country in 1948. Rohingya Ethnic Group is not recognized as the national race of Myanmar and they are assumed unable to meet the requirements to be the citizens of Myanmar. Second, there is no freedom in conducting activities and to move to somewhere, both inside and outside the country (freedom of movement). There is no access to get the state education, prohibition to get a position as a civil servant and to participate in the government. Third, the Arbitrary Confiscation of Property, in which there are extorting acts through confiscation to food, cattle, or money. Lastly, the forced labor. Every Rohingya Family should send one of its member to be a forced labor and will not get paid. Accessed from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/burma/burm005-02.htm, on October 20, 2015. These are the causes of the escape of Rohingya Ethnic People from Myanmar.

On these three articles by K.C. Saha, Moshahida Sultana Ritu and the report of Human Right Watch, the focus is on the cause of the Rohingya People to be Refugees. They found several causes, as expressed by Saha that the Rohingya Ethnic Group is considered as illegal ethnic group from Bangladesh. Meanwhile, according to Ritu, there is an ethnic cleansing project conducted by Myanmar's government. And the last, according to the report of Human Right Watch, there are some causes, first, there is a Denial of Citizenship of the Rohingya Ethnic Group. Second, there is no freedom in conducting activities and to move to somewhere, both inside and outside the country (freedom of movement). There is no access to get the state education, prohibition to get a position as a civil servant and to participate in the government. Third, the Arbitrary Confiscation of Property, and the last, the forced labor towards the Rohingya Ethnic Group.

The next article is from Jacobsen. Jacobsen explored four broad categories of factors affecting refugee policies which are: 1) bureaucratic choices made by the government; 2) international relations; 3) the absorption capacity of the local host community; and 4) national security considerations. Jacobsen. 1996, 'Factors influencing the policy responses of host governments to mass refugee influxes', International Migration Review, vol. 30, no. 3 Jacobsen's framework is useful to explain why host government often respond in a different way to a different group of refugees. Why is it that host government sometimes respond generously and other times they securitize the refugees?

For this research purpose, I focused on the national security consideration as a factor. According to Jacobsen, national security factor can be viewed as three dimensions. The strategic dimension is a traditional view of security which is the ability of state to defend itself militarily from external attack. The regime dimension is the capacity of the government to protect itself from internal threat coming from domestic chaos and conflict. The structural dimension points out the balance between a state's population and its resources (food, water, living space). This balance is troubled when population demands on resources become too great and the government is unable to manage them.

As the next reference, the author reviewed an article written by Siegfried O. Wolf in 2015 entitled The Rohingya: Humanitarian Crisis or Security Threat?. In his article, Wolf expresses some analyses regarding Rohingya Refugees as a threat. The arrival of Rohingya Refugees is an issue for the host countries, since if their arrival is accepted, the consequence is that there will be a larger wave of refugees coming. In turn, the illegal Rohingya Refugees (especially for those who are not registered as refugees) are considered as the cause of the conflict. And so there is a concern for host countries that the Rohingya issue contributes and is responsible for the emergence of international jihad movements. There is a claim that the Rohingya Ethnic Group plays a role in helping the Islamic fundamentalists by conducting their activities passively. This concern has some reasons, since several parts of Rohingya refugees have an active relationship with some prohibited organizations such as (Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh) JMB or Huji (Harakat ul-Jihad al-Islami). Furthermore, Wolf writes that Rohingya refugees also causes disruption in general law and public order. In addition to cause terrorism issues, extremists' violence, and religious extremists, Rohingya is also associated with all kinds of crime including narcotics, human trafficking, illegal trade in SALW (small arms and light weapons), ammunition, theft, armed robbery, and maritime piracy. The other concerns are related to illegal cross-border smuggling and infiltration. Rohingya is also linked to the growing crime rates through networks in the host countries related extortion, sexual harassment, killing to obtain body organs, crimes against Household Assistants and forced labor committed towards these refugees. 17 Siegfried O. Wolf. The Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis or Security Threat. Accessed from http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/the-rohingya-humanitarian-crisis-or-security-threat/, on October 21st, 2015.

The next reference is the article written by Eliane Coates, RSIS published in 2013, entitled Myanmar's Religious Violence a Threat to Southeast Asia's Security. Coates wrote this paper with the aim of analyzing the impact of religious conflict in Myanmar that caused the Rohingya People to escape from Myanmar to some ASEAN countries. The violence committed between the Buddhist and Muslim groups in Myanmar has an extended effect on other countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia. There is a concern that the violence against Rohingyas will encourage a radicalization of Muslims outside Myanmar for revenge. According to former ASEAN Secretary, General Suit Pitsuan, radicalization has an implication on regional security extensively. The violence in Myanmar has caused a tension between Buddhists and Muslims in some countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. According to the data provided by Coates, there has been a counterattack committed by Muslims against Buddhists in Kuala Lumpur. In Indonesia, there were eight people died due to a dispute between Muslim refugees and Buddhist groups at the camp in Medan. Even, the militant group of Indonesia, Abu Bakar Bashir sent a letter to President Thein Sein containing criticism. In May 2013, the radical Indonesian Muslims had published a threat for a bombing in the Myanmar embassy in Jakarta. Then, there is also a concern that these refugees will be exploited by radical groups to be recruited to be a part of them, so as to threaten the security of the country and even regional security. Eliane Coastes. Myanmar's Religious Violence A Threat To Southeast Asia's Security. Accessed from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/07/04/myanmars-religious-violence-a-threat-tosoutheast-asias-security/, on October 21st, 2015.

In order to see the threat posed by Rohingya Refugees to Indonesia, I will also review the article of Robert Spencer, 2012 entitled Indonesa: Muslims Threaten Violence, Vow Jihad Against Myanmar. Spencer wrote that the arrival of Rohingya Refugees to Indonesia encouraged religious solidarity among Muslims especially for the hardline groups such as the Front Pembela Islam (FPI) and Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT). They held a demonstration at the Myanmar embassy in Jakarta, as in their speech demanding the Myanmar's government to stop the "genocide" against the Muslims of Rohingya. They threatened that if the Myanmar's government does not resolve this problem, they will destroy the embassy and take a revenge action. Because according to these hardliners, an eye for an eye. Robert Spencer. Indonesia: Muslims threaten violence, vow jihad against Myanmar. Accessed from http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/indonesia-muslims-threaten-violence-vow-jihadagainst-myanmar, on October 21st, 2015

Similarly, the articles of Siegfried O. Wolf and Eliane Coates focused on the impact of Rohingya Refugees on several ASEAN countries. According to Wolf, there is a concern for host countries that the Rohingya issue contributes and is responsible for the emergence of international jihad movements since some of the refugees are actively related to some prohibited organizations such as JMB or Huji. Rohingya is also associated with all kinds of crime including narcotics, human trafficking, illegal trade in SALW (small arms and light weapons), ammunition, theft, armed robbery, and maritime piracy. The other concerns are related to illegal cross-border smuggling and infiltration. Rohingya is also linked to the growing crime rates through networks in the host countries related extortion, sexual harassment, killing to obtain body organs, crimes against Household Assistants and forced labor committed towards these refugees. Meanwhile, according to Coates, the Rohingya Refugees have an impact on the social tension between the Muslim and Buddhist groups in several countries and it also triggers the anger of Muslim Extremists. The article of Robert Spencer focuses on the impact of the issue of Rohingya Refugees arrivals in Indonesia which encouraged religious solidarity among Muslims especially for the hardline groups such as the Front Pembela Islam (FPI) and Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT). They held a demonstration at the Myanmar embassy in Jakarta. Certainly, it will have an impact on the tranquility and security of the Indonesian People. From these three articles regarding the impact of the arrivals of Rohingya Refugees, the author will make them as the references for the writings in the next chapter.

The next literature as the author's reference in this article is an article written by Inge Brees, entitled Burden or Boon: The Impact of Burmese Refugees on Thailand. Brees, Inge. "Burden or boon: The impact of Burmese refugees on Thailand." Whitehead J. Dipl. & Int'l Rel. 11 (2010): 35. This article aims to analyze the impact of the Rohingya refugees from Burma/Myanmar to Thailand. Inge Brees' article highlights the impact of refugee arrivals in terms of security, economy, politics, environment.

According to Brees, the presence of these refugees has an impact on health, crime and more-complicated political situation in Thailand. In addition, the arrival of the refugees has a major impact on the environment, due to the need for housings and other survival matters. The arrival of these refugees demands land clearing to place the refugees. In addition to the 1997 crisis, the presence of immigrants and refugees in Myanmar was blamed for taking-up the jobs which leads to massive deportations of asylum seekers. However, there are also positive findings of Brees, such as the refugee workforce which can be employed in the textile, agriculture, fishery industries with low wages but it also affects the dependence on cheap foreign labors and the presence of competition between the local people and refugees in getting jobs.

Next, in order to find out the securitization process, there are some articles as the references for securitization with several different issues such as the article by S. Morgan Trujillo entitled The Securitization of Legal Immigration in The United Kingdom, Joshua Seidman-Zager for Refugee Studies Centre with a theme of The Securitization of Asylum: Protecting UK Residents, a research by Rajwant Deo entitled The Securitization of Asylum Seekers in Canadian Political Discourse, and the article entitled The Securitization of Cross-Border Migration in Sweden by Nana Poku and David T.

Trujillo sees a clash of social identities that could threaten the security due to the arrivals of immigrants from outside Europe. Trujillo analyzes that the political elites and government agencies use language in promoting or influencing the perspectives on the identity threats by the people from outside Europe and the United Kingdom. The securitization on legal immigrants, especially on the asylum seekers, forms a law and policy into a problem that must be regulated and controlled, whereas these asylum seekers are a group of people who escaped due to threats and cruelty that should get help and attention. D. Morgan Trujillo 2013. The Securitization of Legal Immigration in The United Kingdom.

The next reference is the a research by Rajwant Deo entitled The Securitization of Asylum Seekers In Canadian Political Discourse. Rajwant Deo, BA, 2013. The Securitization of Asylum Seekers in Canadian Political Discourse. Wilfrid Laurier University. Deo finds that the Canadian political discourse against the asylum seekers is very similar to the discourses that occurred in Europe, Australia and South Africa. In general, asylum seekers are considered negative which can threaten security, violate the system rules, system abuse and require high costs or fees. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are considered endangering Canada and become a critical issue that requires serious steps to handle. The political discourse created the issue of asylum seekers as an issue of security threats, so that there is a proposed solution to make the C-11 and C-13 Bills to prevent such threats.

This study shows the language ability used as a weapon to influence the public against the steps taken.

Furthermore, the research conducted by Joshua Seidman-Zager for Refugee Studies Center with the theme of The Securitization of Asylum: Protecting UK Residents. Zager argues that the security discourse regarding asylum and terrorism in United Kingdom has grown to have mutual relationship in recent years. The securitizing actors start connecting between the asylum and terrorism. The increasing number of asylum seekers since the late 20th century has made this issue seen as an urgent and undesirable issue since it can threaten the British citizens.

The relationship between asylum seekers and international terrorist networks is increasing after the 9/11 tragedy. The relationship between asylum and terrorism is promoted in public discourse by the government. According to Zager, the efforts made by the British government to relate terrorism with asylum seekers are quite successful in making people to worry and fear about. Thus, the fear of the people can make them to agree with the discourse built by the government.

The Securitization of Cross-Border Migration in Sweden is written by Nana Poku and David T. Graham in a book entitled Redefining Security: Population Movements and National Security. Nana Poku and David T. Graham. Redefining Security: Population Movements and National Security. In this book, both of them analyzed how the migration phenomenon to and/or from Sweden changed over 1990s. The immigrants have been described as a serious threat to Swedish security stability. According to both of them, the efforts to establish a security discourse on cross-border migration are made by the politicians, researchers, observers, and the mass media by considering migrants as political, economic and sociocultural threats. So that, they think the threat makes the policy makers and researchers to focus on making responses towards the issue of migration by taking various considerations.

This research will be different from those four articles above, especially on its issue. They focus on the migration issue, as the legal migrants coming to United Kingdom as explained by Trujillo. In this research, the researcher will conduct a further research on how the securitization process in the refugee issue occurred in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Provided that the refugees are those with a very weak and threatened condition. It is very different from the condition of the immigrants who do not certainly have a difficult background as the refugees. The findings are also different among the four researchers above, as Trujillo finds that how the government uses the instrument of identity packaged as convincing as possible which can be eroded by the arrivals of the immigrants from outside Europe. Meanwhile, in his article, Zager argues that how the government packed the migration and terrorism issues as two related issues which can threat the security. Rajwant shows how the language ability of Canadian Government in influencing public opinion by considering the asylum seekers as the security threat who violate regulation and require high costs from the finance of Canadian government. The last, the article made by Poku and Graham, they find that there are political, economic, and sociocultural threats so that the policy makers use these instruments to securitize the migration issue in Sweden.

...