Since 2012, Southeast Asia has witnessed the human rights tragedy of the Rohingya people of Myanmar. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have been displaced from their homes and traveled to refugee facilities in Myanmar and Bangladesh, while others have been stranded on the Andaman Sea. The Rohingya crisis is perhaps the most horrific human rights tragedy after the crisis in Vietnam in the 1970s. As the crisis has developed, international communities, including ASEAN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), have responded to the crisis. As the main regional organization, ASEAN has been hoped to elucidate the crisis tactically through peaceful means. OIC, meanwhile, has been expected to join humanitarian action using a diplomatic approach to other international humanitarian bodies, including the UNHCR. However, it is obvious that ASEAN's response to the crisis has been limited to diplomatic oration and failed to prevent a wider crisis. For OIC, its humanitarian solidarity has lacked access to the target community. Therefore, this paper would like to attempt a comparative analysis to describe the central inquiry; how have ASEAN and OIC responded to the Rohingya crisis? This analysis involves studying ASEAN and OIC publications and related references. The initial argument of this paper is that both organizations have given reasonable responses to the crisis, but have been unable to halt its advance.

ASEAN memainkan kata-kata antara istilah migran, imigran, pencari suaka, orang-orang yang diperdagangkan dan orang-orang yang diselundupkan untuk mendeskripsikan dorongan perpindahan manusia yang luar biasa dari Myanmar. Istilah-istilah tersebut merupakan representasi sekuritisasi isu-isu kemanusiaan ASEAN. Namun sangat disayangkan ASEAN enggan menyebutnya dengan istilah pengungsi padahal semua aspek telah terpenuhi. Dalam hal ini, ASEAN mengambil langkah linguistik politik secara hati-hati dengan menghindari kata 'pengungsi' dalam kamus politik mereka. Artikel ini mempertanyakan: mengapa dan bagaimana ASEAN mensekuritisasi masalah pengungsi? Dan apa konsekuensi politik bagi ASEAN jika terus mempertahankan kebijakan sekuritisasi? Pembahasan dalam tulisan ini disajikan melalui pendekatan perspektif konstruktivis. Melalui pendekatan ini, dapat dilihat bahwa konstruksi pengungsi di ASEAN sangat dipengaruhi oleh nilainilai yang membangun keamanan kolektifnya. Dalam hal ini, ASEAN mengabaikan peran dan identitasnya sebagai penegak hak asasi manusia di kawasan. Penolakan untuk mematuhi rezim hak asasi manusia internasional ini akan mengakibatkan hilangnya kredibilitas dan integritas ASEAN. Kata kunci: hak asasi manusia, imigran, Rohingya, pengungsi, sekuritisasi.

Despite economic integration challenges, ASEAN faces greater security challenges. It is obvious to assert that a stable economic development requires a secure regional atmosphere. The traditional and nontraditional threats encounter ASEAN home land security. The most probable threats portraying ASEAN are hostile foreign entities infiltration, intra and inter states disputes, radical religious movements, human trafficking, drugs and narcotics smuggling, and even cybercrimes. To this point, ASEAN has taken constructive measures such as establishing consultative forums, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), ASEAN Defense Minister's Meeting (ADMM) and ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crimes (AMMTC). In 2009, ASEAN adopted the ASEAN Political and Security Community. One of its stated purposes is to share security responsibility of each ASEAN member through constructivist approach. However, APSC has far of being success to achieve its ideal mission. Therefore, this piece would critically examined the fundamental questions: how does ASEAN security policy through APSC meet its interest to secure ASEAN region? To search for the answer it would apply constructivism approach. Constructivism ponders the significance role of regional security institution such as APSC in security structure. It suggests that regional security community should be build based on shared values among states in a region. Constructivist's regional security model will be used as the explanatory model for APSC case. While the Regional Security Complex (RSC) theory would be employed to analyze the security dynamic is ASEAN. Itargues that the APSC is able to create pivotal security forums but lack of confidence in tactical level. It also suggest that APSC's policies are laid in triangualar basis; rely on dialogue, establishing forums and innitiatives, and rely on non-legal binding principle.

The U.S. and China relations in Southeast Asia have been a long contesting history. It is no question that the U.S. and China are playing strategy to stronghold Southeast Asia for their gain. Both states seek greater influence by applying the multilateral and bilateral approach to ASEAN and its member states. In engaging to ASEAN, the U.S. and China joined ASEAN led multilateral forums such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and ASEAN Plus Three. Traditionally, the U.S. and China already have bilateral diplomatic relations with all ASEAN member states. But it does not necessarily represent their deep commitment to the Southeast Asia region. Furthermore, ASEAN relations with the U.S. and China are overshadowed by the rivalry between the two major powers. The US increasing military tied with the Philippines and Thailand's strategic plan to acquire submarines from China are the recent development of rivalries between the two. Therefore, it is fascinating to examine how the US and China's bilateral and multilateral approaches affecting ASEAN and its member states policies. It is argued that ASEAN should maintain neutral performance in engaging with the U.S. and China. It also suggests that ASEAN member states should keep their 'community' identity to derogate the possible deterioration of the stability in the region. Hubungan antara Amerika Serikat (A.S) dan Tiongkok di kawasan Asia Tenggara memiliki sejarah persaingan yang panjang. A.S dan Tiongkok memainkan strategi untuk menguasai Asia Tenggara demi kepentingan mereka. Kedua negara berusaha untuk mencapai pengaruh yang lebih luas dengan melakukan pendekatan multilateral dan bilateral pada ASEAN dan negara anggotanya. Dalam hubungaannya dengan ASEAN, A.S dan Tiongkok terlibat dalam forum multilateral ASEAN seperti ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), dan ASEAN Plus Three. Secara tradisional, A.S dan Tiongkok telah memiliki hubungan diplomasi bilateral dengan negara anggota ASEAN. Namun hal tersebut belum menunjukkan komitmen utama mereka di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Lebih jauh lagi, hubungan ASEAN dengan A.S dan Tiongkok dibayangi oleh persaingan antar kedua negara besar tersebut. Peningkatan hubungan militer A.S dengan Filipina dan rencana strategis Thailand untuk membeli kapal selam dari Tiongkok merupakan perkembagan teranyar dari persaingan antar kedua negara tersebut. Oleh karenaya, artikel ini akan menganalisis bagaimana pendekatan multilateral dan bilateral yang dilakukan oleh A.S dan Tiongkok mempengaruhi kebijakan ASEAN dan negara anggotanya. Argumen utama dalam artikel ini adalah ASEAN harus tetap mempertahankan netralitas dalam kebijakannya terhadap A.S dan Tiongkok. Artikel ini juga merekomendasikan agar ASEAN dan negara anggotanya tetap berpegang pada identitas ‘komunitas’ untuk menghindari kemungkinan eprpecahan di kawasan.

No abstract