Indonesia must ratify 1951 UN convention<\/p>\n
By Enny Soeprapto<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The Convention relating to the Status of
\nRefugees will be 50 years old this July 28. The Convention,
\noriginally designed to deal with refugee situations in Europe
\nprior to Jan. 1 1951 was amended in 1967 by the Protocol relating
\nto the Status of Refugees. The latter removes the time limitation
\n(events before Jan. 1 1951) as well as the geographical
\nlimitation (events in Europe) of the applicability of the 1951
\nConvention, making the instrument universally applicable. The
\n1951 Convention \/ 1967 Protocol has been ratified by 140 States,
\nor over 73 per cent of the membership of the United Nations.<\/p>\n
Of these, however, only seven are from the Asian region
\n(Cambodia, China, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Republic of
\nKorea, Philippines and Yemen). Why? The following would seem to
\nbe the main reasons.<\/p>\n
First, most countries in Asia are developing nations with a
\nlarge populations. Uplifting their people's welfare is their
\npriority, and refugees are a burden they cannot afford. Second,
\nthere is the misperception that becoming a party to the 1951
\nConvention \/ 1967 Protocol would impose an international legal
\nobligation to permanently resettle the refugees in the countries
\nconcerned.<\/p>\n
And, third, there is another misperception that ratifying the
\n1951 Convention \/ 1967 Protocol would lead to increased inflows
\nof refugees to these countries.<\/p>\n
Such fears were expressed in an article in The Jakarta Post by
\nLukmiardi of the immigration office (\"Urgent: Better handling of
\nIndonesia's illegal aliens, July 7), in the light of the many
\noutsiders seeking shelter in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
In an increasingly interdependent world the burden sharing of
\nhumanitarian problems has become an internationally accepted
\nprinciple. Therefore, as refugee issues are problems of
\ninternational scope and nature every government is expected to
\nplay their party in seeking a solution.<\/p>\n
Ratifying the 1951 Convention \/ 1967 Protocol implies, of
\ncourse, that States Parties accept certain international legal
\nobligations. However these instruments contain no provisions
\nrequiring state parties to accept refugees for permanent
\nresettlement in their territories.<\/p>\n
The only non-derogable principle is the principle of \"non-
\nrefoulement\" (article 33 of the 1951 Convention), which prohibits
\nstate parties from expelling or returning (\"refouler\") refugees
\nin any manner whatsoever to their countries, or as the Convention
\nstates, the \"territories of their race, religion, nationality,
\nmembership of a particular social group or political opinion.\"<\/p>\n
Fears that ratifying this convention would attract more
\nrefugees to the country concerned are totally unfounded. Other
\nfactors, such as geographical proximity, similarity of culture or
\nexpectations of more freedom are the factors making a country
\nmore attractive to refugees. The Philippines, for example, which
\nacceded to the 1951 Convention \/ 1967 Protocol in 1981, has never
\nbeen \"inundated\" by refugees.<\/p>\n
Pakistan, on the contrary, which is not a party to the
\ninstruments, has been for a number of years sheltering some two
\nmillion refugees from Afghanistan because of the geographical
\nproximity of the two countries.<\/p>\n
The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, has been a party to the
\n1951 Convention \/ 1967 Protocol since 1976. However, the presence
\nof some 1.9 million Afghan refugees in Iran is not because this
\ncountry is a party to the refugee instruments, but because it
\nshares common borders with the country of origin of the refugees.
\nDuring the second half of the 1970s, all the countries in North
\nand Southeast Asia became countries of first asylum for asylum
\nseekers from the Indochinese peninsula, in spite of the fact that
\nnone of these countries was, at that time, a party to the 1951
\nConvention and 1967 Protocol.<\/p>\n
The Preamble of the 1945 Constitution states that one of the
\npurposes of founding the Republic of Indonesia is to form a
\ngovernment which shall participate in implementing a world order
\nbased on freedom, abiding peace and social justice. Indonesia has
\nbeen a member of the UN for more than half a century. It was both
\na co-sponsor and host for the historical Asia-Africa Conference
\nin Bandung, 1955, which declared, among other things, \"its full
\nsupport of the fundamental principles of human rights as set
\nforth in the UN Charter\". It took note of the Universal
\nDeclaration of Human Rights as \"a common standard of achievement
\nfor all peoples and nations\".<\/p>\n
The Indonesian prime minister's circular of September 1956
\nstates that refugees who enter Indonesian territory will be
\ngranted protection \"on the basis of human rights and fundamental
\nfreedoms,\" adding that this is in line with the above UN
\ndeclaration.<\/p>\n
For 20 years, from 1975 through 1995, Indonesia granted de
\nfacto temporary asylum to asylum seekers from the Indochinese
\npeninsula, 121,000 of whom, during 1979 to 1995, were sheltered
\nin Galang Island.<\/p>\n
In 1998, the People's Consultative Assembly adopted a decree
\non human rights which affirms that Indonesia, being a member of
\nthe UN, \"has the responsibility to respect the Universal
\nDeclaration of Human Rights\" and other related international
\ninstruments.<\/p>\n
The decree further states that \"Everyone has the right to
\nasylum to obtain political protection from other countries.\"<\/p>\n
Jakarta also hosts an office of the UN High Commission for
\nRefugees and has facilitated its operations.<\/p>\n
Yet Indonesia has not ratified the above 1951 Convention and
\n1967 Protocol. Decision makers seem to have subscribed to the
\nabove misperceptions and fears of being flooded by refugees from
\noutside should they do so.<\/p>\n
They do not seem aware of the disadvantages accruing to
\nIndonesia by not being a party to the instruments. As Indonesia
\nis not a party to the 1951 Convention \/ 1967 Protocol, the
\ndetermination of the refugee status of asylum seekers in
\nIndonesia is conducted by the UNHCR, in line with its mandate,
\nwithout the involvement of the Indonesian authorities. Such
\nrefugees are commonly called \"mandate refugees\".<\/p>\n
If Indonesia were a party to those instruments, the competence
\nand responsibility of determining the status of asylum seekers in
\nIndonesia would rest with the Indonesian government. Naturally,
\nthe government may always consult UNHCR given its expertise and
\nexperience.<\/p>\n
Becoming a party to the 1951 Convention \/ 1967 Protocol also
\nhelps to promote friendly ties among nations, particularly
\nbetween the receiving State Parties and the country of origin of
\nthe refugees.<\/p>\n
Considering Indonesia's poor record on its ratification of
\ninternational instruments on human rights, its accession to the
\nabove Convention and Protocol would boost Indonesia's image as a
\nnation committed to promoting respect for human rights, including
\nthe most basic human rights of refugees.<\/p>\n
It would be an illusion to expect that if Indonesia continues
\nto stay out of these instruments, it would dissuade real asylum
\nseekers or economic migrants from coming to the country, even for
\ntemporary stays. It would be impossible to seal off Indonesia,
\ngiven its location on the crossroads between two oceans and two
\ncontinents, with no less than two million square kilometers of
\nland and water territory, and over 17,000 islands with a combined
\ncoastline of 82,000 kilometers.<\/p>\n
Therefore, Indonesia should take in hand the work of
\ndetermining the status of refugees by joining the other 140
\ncountries which have already become party to this convention and
\nprotocol.<\/p>\n
These instruments do not merely promote the rights of
\nrefugees, but by promoting friendly ties among nations, they are
\nalso instruments for peace.<\/p>\n
Enny Soeprapto, Ph.D. is a lecturer on international refugee law
\nat the Surabaya University. From 1975 to 1978 he was a protection
\nofficer at the UNHCR in Geneva, Switzerland.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesia-must-ratify-1951-un-convention-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}