JTUS,
Vol. 02,
No. 5 May, 2024
E-ISSN:
2984-7435, P-ISSN: 2984-7427
|
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58631/jtus.v2i5.104 |
Indonesia as a
Transit State in Handling Overseas Refugees from the Aspect of Immigration
Policy
Fahrizal Saputra1*,Eva Achjani Zulfa2, Stanislaus Riyanta3
1,2,3Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java,
Indonesia
Email: [email protected]1, [email protected]2,
[email protected]3
|
Abstract Indonesia is a key transit country for refugees in
Southeast Asia, particularly for those aiming to reach Australia. Despite not
having ratified the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the
Status of Refugees, Indonesia continues to see an increasing number of
refugees due to global geopolitical conditions. This increase is not matched
by a corresponding increase in refugee absorption quotas by Convention
countries. Consequently, Indonesia faces a significant challenge as the
number of incoming and transiting refugees exceeds those leaving. The
successful handling of Vietnamese refugees over a period of almost 25 years
now seems difficult to replicate, with only 13% of foreign refugees and
asylum seekers resolving their cases through resettlement or repatriation
since 2004. This study aims to analyze Indonesia's
immigration policies and their effectiveness in managing the current and
uncertain future of foreign refugees. By examining these policies, the study
seeks to understand the measures taken by the Indonesian government to
address the challenges posed by its position as a transit country. Keywords: Transit State, Refugees, Immigration Policy. |
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is one of the
countries in the world that is a crossroads for many refugees because it has a
strategic geographical position, located between the Asian continent and
Australia, as well as between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Although it is not
a final destination country or a target destination for refugees who have gone
through the resettlement process, Indonesia is one of the 'transit countries'
or an appropriate international 'hub' for refugees from the Middle East,
Central Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa who are experiencing
conflict to stop by on the to escape in search of refuge or
asylum to the final destination country.
such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States
Apart from being only a 'transit
country', Indonesia, along with the majority of other Southeast Asian
countries, such as Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam,
Myanmar, and Laos, is not a ratification of the 1957 Convention and the 1961
Protocol on the Status of Refugees that has the obligations, rights, and
responsibilities to receive refugees as stipulated in the international policy.
However, Indonesia must remain open to accepting refugees as customary
international law prohibits the state from denying refugees who escape
persecution (the principle of non-refoulment).
Some of Indonesia's neighboring
countries that have also ratified the two instruments of international law are
Papua New Guinea (ratified on July 17, 1986), Australia (ratified on January
22, 1954) and New Zealand (ratified on August 6, 1973). These countries are
certainly obliged to accept refugees into their countries.
For those who go to save
themselves through the waterway (sea), Indonesian waters, coastal areas, and
scattered islands become a 'means' for them to prepare for their 'dream
country', especially Australia, which is in the southern part of Indonesia.
Therefore, Indonesia, including neighboring countries, such as Malaysia and
Thailand, has a strategic role for Australia in
managing
refugees heading to its country.
The issue of international
refugees cannot be ignored because it has begun to show its urgency by
reflecting on the increasingly heated global geopolitical conditions
As a result of these conditions,
Indonesia can be directly or indirectly affected by Indonesia, including
Australia. The number of Indonesian refugees abroad can increase in proportion
to the increase in the number of global refugees. Until 2024, there are around
13 thousand more refugees from abroad spread across various regions of
Indonesia, which has a ratio to the total population of Indonesia of around
1:2,000,000. These refugees come from various countries with diverse and
different ideological, political, social, and cultural backgrounds from
Indonesia, which of course provides reactions and impacts to the Indonesian
people
On the other hand, the policies
of Australia and the countries parties to the 1951 Convention and the 1967
Protocol began to significantly reduce the number of refugees to be placed in
their countries also affected Indonesia's condition as a transit country. There
is a stagnation in resolving the refugee problem, namely the accumulation of
the number of refugees accompanied by a longer waiting time for refugees at the
'bus stop' which is also a burden on Indonesia. Since 2004, only about 13% of the total accumulated
refugees and asylum seekers have been successfully resolved through
resettlement or voluntary repatriation
Although
little has been written about the political role of transit countries in
managing securitized migration today, it seems widely assumed that transit
countries follow the orders of their stronger neighbors, who seek to prevent
irregular movements outside their countries. respective jurisdictions. It is
also often anticipated that, if foreign aid is linked to the provision of
infrastructure, covers the cost of processing refugees abroad, and enables
policy capacity, this will create dependency in those countries, which are
unable (or unwilling) to provide assistance to those countries. more of their
domestic budgets for the prevention of human smuggling
In
line with their hierarchy of interests, destination countries or communities of
countries, such as the European Union, seek to impose their interests on their
neighbors, in the hope of ensuring that their neighbors comply with their
migration agenda by offering aid and other incentives
Various turmoil and responses
have begun to emerge in the community, ranging from protests, demonstrations,
and even suicide of refugees who are already frustrated in the midst of waiting
and uncertainty about their future to be placed in their destination countries.
Not to mention the protests and rejection by some people over the existence of
refugees, acts of violating the law, and vertical and horizontal friction
involving foreign refugees which can trigger the emergence of new problems that
can threaten peace and public order, and can even have a bad impact on national
resilience and security.
Facing the reality and dynamics
of this global political development, the author wants to examine how the
policy of handling foreign refugees in Indonesia from the perspective of
Indonesia as a transit country and its comparison with other transit countries,
such as Malaysia, as well as the influence of Australia as the nearest refugee
destination country in Indonesia as a transit country and what steps can be
taken
METHOD
This paper uses a descriptive qualitative method with a
literature study approach, namely by describing the condition of Indonesia as a
transit state and the handling of foreign refugees carried out by the
government with various policies for handling refugees that apply globally and
nationally. The data used is secondary data obtained through
searching literature, documents, and news articles related to refugee issues.
The literature in question includes the results of previous research found in various journals
and books.
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
1951
Convention and 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees
The
general basic rights regulated for refugees regulated in the 1951 Convention
and the 1967 Protocol are the right not to be expelled and forcibly returned
(refoulment) to their country of origin because they are afraid and threatened
with their life safety, exempt from punishment as illegal immigrants, carry out
mobility within the territory of the country, get legal services, identity
cards, access to education, receive public assistance, Freedom to worship and practice religious
teachings, get the opportunity to work and be paid, and have the right to have
a house to live in. In addition, refugees are also entitled to the same
treatment as other foreign nationals in the country who are not refugees, and
even receive the same treatment as local citizens (local citizens), which is
the obligation of the state to implement the provisions of the convention
without discrimination related to ethnicity, religion, race/ethnicity, or
country of origin.
In addition to the rights,
conventions and protocols regarding refugee status also include the obligations
of refugees who are in the third country where they live (resettlement) in the form of the obligation to obey
the laws and policies applicable in the country in which they are located, as
well as to maintain appropriate behavior in order to maintain public
order. For countries that have become
part of and signed the conventions and protocols regarding refugee status, of
course, they are obliged to fulfill the responsibilities and rights of refugees
in accordance with the mandate. The Protocol also contains provisions on
procedures for the implementation of protocol policies related to
administration, diplomatic relations, and working relations with UNHCR as the
UN agency that handles refugee affairs.
To
date, Indonesia has not signed the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees or
the 1967 Protocol, and does not have a legislative framework for the protection
of asylum seekers and refugees, so the fulfillment of the rights of refugees is
not fully carried out by the Indonesian government. The Indonesian government
is still assisted by UNHCR and IOM in terms of data collection and refugee
registration, provision of living cost assistance, as well as the resetllement
and repatriation process for refugees.
Composition of
Refugees and Overseas Asylum Seekers in Indonesia
Based
on data as of April 2024, there are 12,779 refugees and asylum seekers (7,236
families) who mostly live in urban areas
and are spread across Indonesia. Almost half of them are from Afghanistan with
a proportion of 45%, followed by Myanmar (22%), Somalia (9%), Iraq (4%), Yemen
(4%), and other countries (16%), as shown in graph 2.1.
Source:
Figure 1. Data of Foreigners
Registered with UNHCR Indonesia
Based
on age categories, refugees and asylum seekers can be grouped into three
categories. First, the category of children with an age range under 18 years
old is 30% of the total. Second, the adult category with an age range between
18 years to 59 years old is 68% of the total number. And finally, the elderly
category with an age group over 59 years old with a proportion of 2%. From the
gender aspect, the composition of refugees and asylum seekers is dominated by
people with the male gender. The composition of these refugees is depicted in
graph 2.2 below.
Source:
Figure 2. Composition of
Refugees/Asylum Seekers by Age and Gender Category
Among
refugees and foreign asylum seekers in Indonesia, there are those who have
vulnerabilities that fall into several
categories of vulnerable groups. A single individual can have or get into more
than one vulnerability. Based on data, there are six types of vulnerability,
namely 745 women at risk, 435 single parents, 330 children without and/or
children separated from their families/companions, 124 people with chronic
diseases, 120 people with disabilities, and 40 vulnerable/at-risk children.
This refugee vulnerability data can be seen in graph 2.3 below.
Sources:
Figure 3. Refugee Vulnerability Data
Refugees
registered with UNHCR Indonesia are spread across various regions in Indonesia
and JABODETABEK is the region with the largest number of refugees and asylum
seekers, followed by Medan, Aceh, and Pekanbaru, as listed in table 1.
Table 1. Number and
Distribution of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Registered with UNHCR Indonesia
|
Location |
Sum |
|
Aceh |
1213 |
|
Terrain |
1651 |
|
Pekanbaru |
1187 |
|
Tanjung Pinang %
Batam |
726 |
|
Jabodetabek |
5794 |
|
Semarang |
36 |
|
Surabaya |
399 |
|
Denpasar |
49 |
|
Makassar |
1050 |
|
Kupang |
175 |
|
Other |
497 |
Sources:
Some
of them live in temporary shelters or community houses provided by local
governments, UNHCR, or IOM. They also received 'pocket money' to meet their
needs from IOM. Others live
independently outside shelters provided by the authorities and do not receive
pocket money assistance from IOM. In this temporary shelter, the refugees are
monitored by implementing a mandatory reporting system to the supervisors.
However, those who live independently are also subject to mandatory periodic
reporting at a predetermined immigration detention house or post. The handling
of foreign refugees in Indonesia is currently regulated through Presidential
Regulation Number 125 of 2016.
Indonesia's
Experience in Handling Overseas Refugees from Vietnam
Indonesia once received nearly
250 thousand Vietnamese refugees who escaped by boat due to the civil war that
raged in 1979 or known as boat people. Because the Government of Indonesia does
not have the authority and policy related to the handling of refugees, the
Government then coordinated and cooperated with the United Nations agency in
charge of refugees, namely the United Nations High Commission for Refugees
(UNHCR) and designated Galang Island as a Vietnamese refugee camp on February
21, 1971.
The refugees at that time tended
to be homogeneous (coming from almost the same country or ethnicity, and
cultural background) concentrated in one shelter. Galang Island was chosen
because it has a strategic position, easy access because it is close to the city center, and
is not yet inhabited. By living on this island, the active interaction of
refugees with local residents can be minimized, even separated. However, the
Galang Island refugee camp is equipped with various facilities and
infrastructure that can support the survival that fulfills the human rights of
refugees, such as places of worship, educational facilities, residences, and
places of economic activities.
After the war subsided, all the
refugees finally managed to return to their home countries facilitated by UNHCR
(repatriation). The Galang Island refugee camp finally stopped operating on
September 3, 1996 after almost 25 years of operation. This is an achievement
and the first good practice experience of the Government of Indonesia in
handling foreign refugees as a 'transit' country.
After
the fall of Saigon in 1975, tens of thousands of people left Vietnam and,
later, Cambodia to seek refuge in the region, including in Indonesia and
Malaysia, before most were eventually resettled in France, Australia, the
United States, and Canada or repatriated to other countries. Vietnam (Battle
1995)
Handling of Overseas
Refugees in Indonesia after Vietnamese Refugees from the Immigration Aspect
After successfully becoming a
'transit country' for overseas refugees from Vietnam for 25 years, Indonesia
has entered a new chapter in facing the challenges of handling refugees from
abroad. It remains consistent with its position as a non-state party to the
1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. In addition, UNHCR also still has a big
role in handling refugees in Indonesia, especially as the 'main actor' that
determines whether a person or 'asylum seeker' can be granted 'refugee status'
through the RSD or Refugees Status Determination process. The determination of
refugee status or RSD does not involve the Indonesian government at all to
determine what qualifications are available for foreigners entering Indonesia
who apply for refugee status and are admissible.
Foreigners who enter Indonesia
and register as asylum seekers with UNHCR are given 60 days or more than two
months to apply for refugee status. If the application for refugee status is
not made, then this foreigner can change his status as an illegal immigrant or
a foreigner who is illegally absent without a travel document or violates the
provisions of the entry permit/residence permit for the foreigner that has been
granted so that he can be detained and detained and sanctioned.
For asylum seekers who apply for
refugee status, they must go through a series of processes, starting from the
registration process, then followed by an in-depth interview to ensure whether
they really meet the rules and requirements as refugees as stipulated in the
1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Interviews are conducted individually
and are usually accompanied by a language translator. If a person's request for
refugee status is denied, they have one chance to appeal. For those who are
accepted, they will get a refugee identity card issued by UNHCR.
Rejected asylum seekers can be
deported out of Indonesia to their country of origin or stateless can be
returned to the country where the asylum seeker departed. For those who are
granted refugee status, they will be granted permission to temporarily stay in
Indonesia with the restrictions as stated in the regulations and will wait for
the completion of a 'long-term solution' by UNHCR, in the form of resettlement
to a third country, voluntary repatriation to the country of origin
(repatriation) or through local integration.
For the resettlement process,
UNHCR is also the one who bridges these refugees with third countries. They
will register refugee candidates to the third host country. However, in terms
of acceptance, it is the country of the party that decides. So, UNHCR has no
intervention in this resettlement process. All costs of evacuation to a third
country and return to the country of origin are covered by UNHCR and IOM.
At
times, the country has attempted to implement stricter border controls, but due
to the high costs of conducting thorough surveillance, a lack of political
commitment, and widespread corruption among border patrol officers and
immigration authorities, the country's vast maritime borders remain
unprotected. There is an opinion that the Indonesian Immigration Law (2011) and
the newly imposed restrictions on the mobility of asylum seekers indicate a
level of Australian interference (Connery et al. 2014a; Mathew and Harley 2016;
Taylor 2005). Although the extent of Australia's intervention is still
questionable, political pressure does not automatically result in full
acceptance and implementation by Indonesian officials.
Most
asylum seekers and refugees currently living in Indonesia consider themselves
transiting, in part because Indonesia does not offer legal options to make them
permanent residents and jobs in the informal economy are hard to come by.
Asylum seekers and refugees in Malaysia are in the same legal uncertainty, yet
many want to stay in Malaysia, as they can find opportunities to work in the
informal economy (Hoff staedter 2014). Other countries, especially those from
Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Iran, find it easy to enter Malaysia, the first
destination of their trip. They often do not register with UNHCR in Malaysia
and look for opportunities to travel to Indonesia. Therefore, both Indonesia
and Malaysia function as transit countries and destination countries, depending
on how asylum seekers and refugees view their future in those countries.
For
example, the Rohingya, who are the largest refugee population in Malaysia, see
it as a destination country, given that the country is a Muslim country where
they can practice their religion freely after decades of oppression in Myanmar.
In 2017, the Malaysian government began to convey its problems to ASEAN and the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). For the second largest refugee
population, Christian Chin from Myanmar, Malaysia is still a transit country
where they are waiting to be resettled in America or Australia.
Malaysia
and Indonesia continue to treat asylum seekers and refugees based on their
experiences with the Indochinese and the 1989 Comprehensive Action Plan which
led to the resettlement of all asylum seekers and refugees after Malaysia and
Indonesia granted them temporary protection based on that understanding. that
the international community will take full responsibility for their well-being
and resettlement elsewhere (Robinson 2004). Based on this experience, Malaysia
and Indonesia consider themselves generous by granting temporary admissions but
leaving further responsibility to UNHCR and its international funders.
Both
countries reject any financial responsibility for the care of asylum seekers,
citing their lack of capacity and lack of domestic support for refugees and
refugee rights.
Nonetheless,
the Malaysian government has shown a mixed response, using humanitarian reasons
to support a number of refugees, especially Muslims from Southeast Asian
countries, but ignoring others (Hoff staedter 2017). Malaysia has fully
integrated a number of refugee populations, providing citizenship and
settlement services, such as the case of Moro refugees in East Malaysia to Cham
Muslims in West Malaysia in the 1980s. In Indonesia, it is theoretically
possible to obtain citizenship after being a legal resident for ten years, but
this requires a rejection of the demand for resettlement elsewhere. Since the
relatively friendly reception of Indochinese people between the late 1970s and
early 1990s, the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in Malaysia and
Indonesia has changed considerably, partly due to the ongoing pressure from
Australia and their external border and asylum policies.
Policies for Handling
Overseas Refugees in Indonesia
There are various policies regarding overseas
refugees issued by the Government of Indonesia has issued various policies at
the national level as an effort to handle the problem of overseas
refugees. explained that Indonesia began
to try to get to know the law related to refugees in 1981. These efforts began
to intensify since 1998 until finally fruitful in Law 37 of 1999 concerning
Foreign Relations in article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2) which mandated the
determination of refugee policy by the President.
Table 2. National
Policy Regarding Overseas Refugees in Indonesia
|
No. |
Policy/Regulation |
|
1 |
Prime Minister's Circular Letter Number: 11/RI/1956
concerning the Protection of Political Refugees |
|
2 |
Presidential Decree No. 38 of 1979 concerning Coordination
of Settlement of Vietnamese Refugee Problems in Indonesia |
|
3 |
TAP MPR RI Number: XVII/MPR/1998 on Human Rights |
|
4 |
Law Number 37 of 1999 concerning Foreign Relations |
|
5 |
Law 39 of 1999 on Human Rights |
|
6 |
Presidential Regulation No. 11 of 1999 concerning the
Handling of Refugees After the East Timor Poll |
|
7 |
Presidential Decree No. 3 of 2001 concerning the National
Coordinating Board for Disaster Management and Refugee Handling |
|
8 |
Presidential Decree No. 25 of 2003 concerning Data
Collection of Residents of the Former Province of East Timor |
|
9 |
Regulation of the Directorate General of Immigration
Number: IMI-1489. UM.08.05 dated September 17, 2010 concerning the Handling
of Illegal Immigrants |
|
10 |
Law Number 6 of 2011 concerning Immigration |
|
11 |
Presidential Regulation Number 125 of 2016 concerning the
Handling of Refugees from Abroad |
|
12 |
Circular Letter of the Minister of Education |
|
13 |
Circular Letter of the Minister of Home Affairs on the
Handling of Overseas Refugees in the Regions |
Source: processed by
the author, 2024.
In the
policy of the 1950s to the early 2000s, the Government of Indonesia did not
provide a clear definition of refugees. The term refugee is still generally
understood as a general meaning of the word refugee as a person who is forced
to leave his or her area of residence to a safe place without distinguishing
the reasons that cause the person to move, whether due to natural disasters,
social disasters or man-made disasters, or due to violence, persecution, and
violations of basic rights or human rights
In
2016, the Government of Indonesia issued Presidential Regulation Number 125 of
2016 concerning the Handling of Refugees from Abroad which regulates a limited
number of refugees or asylum seekers in Indonesia. This Presidential Regulation
is a mandate from the Foreign Relations Law which, when reviewed, is not in
line with Law Number 6 of 2011 concerning Immigration which considers refugees
to be illegal immigrants and can be sanctioned.
The
existence of foreigners in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 6 of 2011
concerning Immigration, Government Regulation Number 31 of 2013 concerning
Implementing Regulations of Law Number 6 of 2011 concerning Immigration, and
its derivative regulations. In general, matters that regulate the entry and
exit of Indonesian Citizens and Foreign Citizens, including requirements,
mechanisms, and other technical matters are regulated in the regulation. There
is also no clause regulating refugees from abroad and asylum seekers. Thus,
when a person or a group of people from a foreign country enter Indonesian
territory legally according to procedures or legally and then become refugees
and asylum seekers, it can be categorized as an illegal immigrant who commits immigration
administration violations. Eventually, the group of foreigners is grouped into
one and placed in an immigration detention house, and can even be repatriated
to their home country or deported. The imposition of sanctions and deportations
is certainly contrary to the mandate of the 1951 Convention which states that
refugees who come and enter the country without going through the official
process with travel documents (passports) and entry permits (visas) are not
punished for illegal infiltration.
Then
when talking about foreigners, Indonesian Immigration implements a selective
policy, which in essence only foreigners provide benefits and do not endanger
security and public order that are allowed to enter and be in Indonesian
territory, in order to protect national interests. Although foreigners who are
allowed to enter Indonesia have been officially screened according to
procedures, there are still some of these foreigners who use entry permits as
visitors or use tourist visas and then abuse them by not returning to their
home country and settling in Indonesia and becoming refugees.
In
addition, Presidential Regulation 125 of 2016 does not distinguish between
refugees and asylum seekers so that it can cause confusion in the handling of
foreigners in Indonesia who have actually fled due to fear and threats of
safety due to the condition of their country that cannot provide protection or
asylum seekers who are people who are on the run seeking protection for certain
personal reasons, including political reasons.
There
is also a difference between the Immigration Law and the Presidential
Regulation on the Handling of Refugees from Abroad. The handover of refugees
and asylum seekers to immigration detention centres and data collection certainly
gives rise to the interpretation that the Indonesian Government gives
permission to foreigners to enter Indonesian territory without carrying out the
provisions stipulated in the Immigration Law
Dynamics of Handling
Overseas Refugees in Indonesia as a Transit Country and Australia's Influence
in Immigration Policy
This
article challenges the common assumption that transit countries—at reasonable
prices—tend to be implementers of externalized border and asylum policies
(Andersson 2014; Curley and Vandyk 2017; Choplin 2012; Kimball 2007; Yildiz
2016). Australia, as we have shown, is indeed providing substantial financial
and material support to eradicate human smuggling in the region to prevent the
departure of asylum seekers from Indonesia and Malaysia. However, as we have
already said, the success of these measures is still questionable. These
financial incentives not only have a small impact on the reduction of irregular
maritime travel, but more importantly, they have also had a negative impact on
bilateral relations as a whole, especially in the case of Indonesia.
Ignoring
domestic political interests related to irregular migration in Malaysia and
Indonesia has come under heavy criticism for being blatantly oriented towards
its own political interests. In particular, Australia's policy of Sovereign
Border Operations returning asylum seeker ships to Indonesia has severely
weakened mutual trust.
In
addition, Australia's policy of "stopping the boat" has ignored
important changes in perception in Malaysia and Indonesia in light of
international expectations of their efforts to help alleviate the global
refugee crisis. Indonesia and Malaysia have now become de facto destination
countries, regardless of whether they accept this reality or not, and they must
move beyond just identifying as transit countries and confronting the
post-transit reality. However, Australia's strategic meeting also needs to factor
in this change. Australia's unilateral and bilateral approach has negative
diplomatic consequences for the entire region and seriously undermines broader
regional cooperation focused on irregular migration. As long as these
approaches remain grounded in Australian interests and driven by Australian
funding, these unilateral approaches and bilateral arrangements run the risk of
many pitfalls. The focus on unilateral action against regional instruments,
such as the Bali Process, does not take seriously the domestic problems of
regional partners related to irregular migration, nor does it respect broader
international norms and laws. Equally important, as demonstrated in the Papua
New Guinea and Nauru refugee detention and resettlement agreements, by relying
on unstable and corrupt regimes, Australia is putting itself in a vulnerable
position and reducing its ability to have a voice as a democratic and humane
regional country. human rights leaders (Hoff staedter 2013). Therefore, the
next step must certainly include the establishment of more multilateral
arrangements involving source, transit and destination countries
Dynamics of Refugee
Policy Implementation in Indonesia
The condition of regulatory vacuum that regulates
the existence of refugees and asylum seekers creates gaps and uncertainties
faced by refugees and asylum seekers because the responsibility for managing
affairs over them does not have a strong legal basis. Neither the central nor
local governments have the mandate, authority, or responsibility to manage
refugees and asylum seekers. The consequence is also related to uncertainty
about budget allocation to support refugees and asylum seekers. On the other
hand, there is also no clear mechanism to end the uncertainty of the status of
refugees from abroad, other than waiting for a third country to give the green
light to receive their presence through UNHCR.
In the
midst of this legal uncertainty, there are various actions and treatments, both
by the authorities and the local community whose areas are visited by refugees
from abroad. Some were expelled when they were seen entering Indonesian waters,
and some were later rescued and pulled to the mainland. If this is not
specifically arranged, it will become a time bomb in the long run. The number
of refugees entering is increasing and there is no policy that regulates the
time limit for refugees to transit in Indonesia, which can lead to national
defense and security problems.
For this reason, in the midst of this specific
regulatory vacuum, it is necessary to take preventive measures from
immigration, such as by reviewing and reviewing the granting of visas to
citizens who have the potential to commit administrative violations by entering
Indonesia to seek asylum or become refugees, such as citizens who are
experiencing conflict or war. In addition, it is necessary to hold a more
in-depth and detailed clearing house forum for every foreigner who applies for
an entry visa to Indonesia.
Maintaining
the security of the border area is no less important considering that land and
sea borders have the potential to become an entry point for refugees from
abroad and illegal asylum seekers. Therefore, the involvement of elements of
state defense and security, such as elements of the TNI, Polri, BIN, and other
security elements, is very necessary. Another policy that the Government of
Indonesia can implement is to return foreigners to their countries of origin
for those who fail to obtain refugee status from UNHCR in
Indonesia and/or after a certain period of time. The deportation step taken is
actually in line with the Immigration Law which regulates the existence of
foreigners in Indonesia.
Regarding Indonesia's position
against the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, there will be several
advantages obtained by the Government of Indonesia if it ratifies the 1951
Convention and the 1967 Protocol according to Komnas HAM, including having the
authority to determine the status of refugees and asylum seekers themselves,
having the opportunity to receive assistance and/or establishing international
cooperation in the context of strengthening national capacity in handling
refugees and asylum seekers; and prevent
free riders who have negative motives, such as committing human trafficking
crimes. However, until now the Government of Indonesia has not decided to
ratify the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol.
There has been no collective
agreement between ministries/agencies in Indonesia to take a joint decision to
ratify the 1951 Convention. On the other hand, Indonesia is one of the
countries with the fourth largest population in the world and there are still
many people below the poverty line. Because considering the welfare of the
Indonesian people as a priority of the Government of Indonesia, the fulfillment
of the rights for refugees mandated in the 1951 Convention still cannot be
fully fulfilled by the Government of Indonesia, including
a. The provisions of
Article 17 which require States parties to the Convention to provide jobs for
refugees, while currently the unemployment rate in Indonesia is still quite
high.
b. The provisions of
Article 21 containing provisions to provide housing for refugees are also
considered very difficult to be implemented by the Government of Indonesia in
the midst of poverty and development conditions that have not reached the whole
country.
c. The provisions of
Article 22 which allow the state to provide access to education to refugees
while in Indonesia itself is still struggling to equalize access to education
to the entire community.
The national interest as the
basis of state behavior is in line with Machiavelli's statement that the
national interest will always be the justification and basis for state
consideration in behavior and disregard for morality by policymakers in
policy-making in state affairs. The morality of a country is reflected in
compliance with the laws and agreements that are followed. In this case, it can
be said that it is not disobeying or ignoring international agreements because
Indonesia has chosen to have not signed the Convention and Protocol on the
Status of Refugees until now.
Regarding
the implementation of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol by countries
that have ratified, there are still parties to the 1951 Convention and the 1967
Protocol that have not yet fully committed to fulfilling their obligations. One
of them is by refusing and closing the entry of refugees into their country.
For example, Hungary is one of the countries in Europe that has ratified the
1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol on Refugee Status on March 14, 1989.
Geographically, Hungary is located in the middle of the European continent
making this country a gateway for refugees to enter their destination
countries. There are about 1,781 refugees who have applied for asylum in
Hungary and this figure is the highest in any other EU country. The Hungarian
government took steps to build a fence on the border of Hungary and Serbia. In
2017, Hungary also built an electrically powered fence, equipped with heat
sensors, cameras, and loudspeakers guarded by police in southern Hungary. This
step certainly received condemnation from the world. However, returning to the
principle of national interest, Hungary then took the step of a referendum to
determine the agreement and national policy regarding refugees. As a result,
90% of Hungarians rejected the arrival of refugees and eight percent agreed.
The results of this then legitimize his country's attitude to deny refugees
entry into his country
Andrew and Renata explained that
under the administration of Prime Minister John Howard, Australia implemented
the Operation Relex policy and continued with the Turn Back the Boat policy
under the administration of Prime Minister Tony Abbott as an effort to remove
illegal ships carrying refugees and asylum seekers who enter Australian waters
and return the ship to the territory of the country where the ship departed. In
Abbott's time, the policy denied anyone who entered Australia illegally by boat
and they were not allowed to settle and obtain their rights as refugees in
Australia
These policies adopted and
implemented by Hungary and Australia are contrary to the commitments contained
in the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees.
However, this is something that needs to be seriously observed if these countries
justify their actions in order to maintain their country's resilience and
security.
Migration Diplomacy
Migration diplomacy is the use of diplomatic tools,
processes, and procedures to regulate the mobilization of state border
crossings. It should be underlined that a country's ability to utilize the
tools and processes of diplomacy effectively in relation to the migration
process will depend heavily on other factors, such as the strength and
availability of a country's resources. . The three main scopes related to the
definition of migration diplomacy are:
1.
Migration diplomation refers to the actions of states and
investigates how cross-border population mobility is linked to the goals of
state diplomacy.
2.
A country's migration diplomacy is not the same as the
overall migration dynamics in the country, which ranges from strict prohibition
policies to freedom of movement.
3.
Diplomacy is often about negotiations and migration
diplomacy focuses on how the state employs the mobility of people across
borders.
The Indonesian government can more actively use migration diplomacy as
one of the efforts to optimize the handling and resolution of refugee issues in
Indonesia, both by building bilateral communication and negotiations with the
countries of the three refugee destinations and through multilateral frameworks
through organizations or associations of countries such as ASEAN.
CONCLUSION
Indonesia plays a role as a
transit country in handling refugees from abroad, treating asylum seekers and
refugees based on their experiences with Indochinese and the 1989 Comprehensive
Action Plan that led to resettlement after Malaysia and Indonesia provided
temporary protection, in which the international community is responsible for
their well-being and resettlement (Robinson 2004). The 1951 Convention on the
Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol is a multilateralism step under the
coordination of the United Nations through UNHCR to deal with refugee issues,
aimed at maintaining world peace through cooperation between nations. Indonesia
has not ratified the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, so it cannot grant
refugee status and the rights granted by countries that ratify the convention,
on the grounds that it focuses on developing people's welfare and maintaining
national security and stability. However, Indonesia remains a stopover country
for refugees before going to their final destination country, providing shelter
facilities with strict supervision based on Law Number 6 of 2011 concerning
Immigration. Presidential Regulation 125 of 2016 on the Handling of Refugees
from Abroad was issued as a form of respect for the 1951 Convention and the Protocol
on refugee status. In dealing with refugees, Indonesia cooperates with UNHCR
and IOM regarding funding, assistance, and facilitation of refugees seeking
asylum to countries that have signed the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol.
REFERENCE
Adamson, F. B., & Tsourapas, G. (2019). Migration
diplomacy in world politics. International Studies Perspectives, 20(2),
113–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/eky015
Arifin, R., Hanita, M., & Runturambi, A. J. S. (2024).
Maritime border formalities, facilitation and security nexus: Reconstructing
immigration clearance in Indonesia. Marine Policy, 163, 106101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106101
Dempsey, K. E. (2020). Spaces of violence: A typology of
the political geography of violence against migrants seeking asylum in the EU.
Political Geography, 79, 102157.
Eisele, I. (2023, April). Ke Mana Warga Ukraina
Mengungsi? DW. https://www.dw.com/id/warga-ukraina-mengungsi/a-65278921
Hugo, G., Tan, G., & Napitupulu, C. J. (2017).
Indonesia as a transit country in irregular migration to Australia. A Long
Way to Go: Irregular Migration Patterns, Processes, Drivers and
Decision-Making, 167–191.
Missbach, A. (2019). Asylum seekers’ and refugees’
decision-making in transit in Indonesia: The need for in-depth and
longitudinal research. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-En Volkenkunde/Journal
of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 175(4),
419–445.
Missbach, A., & Hoffstaedter, G. (2020). When Transit
States Pursue Their Own Agenda Malaysian and Indonesian Responses to
Australia’s Migration and Border Policies. Migration and Society, 3(1),
64–79. https://doi.org/10.3167/arms.2020.111405
Novianti. (2019). Implementasi Perpres No. 125 Tahun 2016
tentang Penanganan Pengungsi dari Luar Negeri (The Implementation of
Presidential Regulation). Jurnal Negara Hukum, 10(2), 281–300.
https://jurnal.dpr.go.id/index.php/hukum/article/view/1343
Rachmat, A. N. (2020). Realisme dalam Kebijakan Penolakan
Pengungsi dan Migran oleh Hungaria Tahun 2015-2018. Jurnal Dinamika Global,
5.
http://ejournal.fisip.unjani.ac.id/index.php/jurnal-dinamika-global/article/view/192/129
Rosari, N. A. (2023, December 22). Sejarah Pulau Galang,
Penampungan Tentara Jepang hingga Pengungsi Vietnam. Detik.Com.
https://www.detik.com/edu/detikpedia/d-7103111/sejarah-pulau-galang-penampungan-tentara-jepang-hingga-pengungsi-vietnam#:~:text=Para%20pengungsi%20Vietnam%20akhirnya%20hidup,sarana%20prasarana%20untuk%20para%20pengungsi.
Saraswati, D. P., Darmastuti, S., & Raharjo, P. (2024).
Migrant Workers and Policy Implication within the G20 Framework. Journal of
Social and Political Sciences, 7(1).
Sari, I., Putri, R. A., Gunawan, D., Riyadi, S. F.,
Kustiawan, K., & Swastiwi, A. W. (2023). Handling People Smuggling Crimes
in Border Areas: Batam City Case Study. BIO Web of Conferences, 70,
04003. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20237004003
Sarwindaningrum, I. (2023, October 18). Mesir Hadapi
Dilema Pengungsi Palestina. Kompas.Id.
https://www.kompas.id/baca/internasional/2023/10/17/mesir-hadapi-dilema-pengungsi-palestina
Setyaningrum, P. (2023, December). Kisah Pulau Galang,
dari Kamp Vietnam, RSKI Covid-19, hingga Opsi Penampungan Pengungsi Rohingya .
Kompas.Com.
https://regional.kompas.com/read/2023/12/09/211908578/kisah-pulau-galang-dari-kamp-vietnam-rski-covid-19-hingga-opsi-penampungan?page=all
Soeprapto, E. (2004). Promotion of Refugee Law in
Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol2.1.3
Sultoni, Y. (2014). Alasan Indonesia Belum Meratifikasi
Konvensi 1951 Tentang Pengungsi dan Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Pengungsi di
Indonesia. Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya.
Taha, I. A., Rofii, M. S., & Riyanta, S. (2024).
Rohingya Refugees: A Study of Indonesian Government Policies. Asian Journal
of Engineering, Social and Health, 3(4), 813–821.
https://doi.org/10.46799/ajesh.v3i4.298
Turam, B. (2024). The geopolitics of fear: Pro-refugee
resistance to Europe’s racial security. Political Geography, 109,
103047.
Ulfa, N. (2019). Perlindungan Keamanan Manusia Australia
Melalui Kebijakan Turn Back The Boat Pada Masa Pemerintahan Tony Abbott. Journal
of International Relations, 5(4), 671–677.
UNHCR. (n.d.). Solusi Komprehensif. UNHCR. Retrieved
April 4, 2024, from https://www.unhcr.org/id/solusi-komprehensif
UNHCR. (2024). Protection Brief Indonesia.
https://www.unhcr.org/id/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2024/04/Protection-Brief-Indonesia-April-2024.pdf
|
Copyright
holder: Fahrizal
Saputra, Eva Achjani Zulfa, Stanislaus Riyanta
(2024) |
|
First
publication rights: Journal of Transnational Universal Studies
(JTUS) |
|
This
article is licensed under:
|
