Harry David Kiwanta Sembiring

Projecting Refugeehood in Southeast Asia: Will It Disrupt Regional Stability?

Refugeehood is considered as a new mainstream phenomenon to the Southeast Asia

region. The current situation shows the emerging case of refugeehood in Southeast Asia that
one must not overlook. The case of Rohingya refugees and resettlement of refugee from
Australia will not likely be the end of refugeehood in Southeast Asia. ASEAN, as the regional
organization, is expected to play a vital role in mediating this issue. Yet, the regional values,
such as non-inteference and national sovereignty are limiting the unraveling of refugeehood in
the region. So, whither will refugeehood in Southeast Asia be in the future?

This essay will assess current situation of refugeehood in Southeast Asia by

understanding precursor condition and reckoning possible condition in near future. Some
challenges arise in the region as the number of refugees and displaced people keeps on
increasing. Housing issues, services, protection, and settlement process are to name some of
the problems around refugeehood in Southeast Asia. These challenges are often used to justify
further extreme national measure, such as border closures, refoulement, confinement to camps,
and other protection violations. Thus, it is important to predict the future of refugeehood in
Southeast Asia based on the current measures to avert any possible worst condition in the
future.

This essay argues that at glance, refugeehood will become a prominent issue striking
Southeast Asia regional stability. The lack of government’s attention might create a perpetuated
problems around refugeehood. Furthermore, the limitation of ASEAN as a regional
organization will create a question about the relevance of such regional organization in
responding similar regional issues. Hence, a preemptive measure must be taken to forestall the
current condition from becoming a continuing regional crisis.

Gatrell (2013) stated that refugeehood in Southeast Asia emerged from Cold War era
and started in Indochina region. Problems, such as racism, rape, and extortion were
commonplace during growing refugee diaspora. Similar consequences of refugeehood might
still be found in the current situation in response of growing tide of nationalism and
conservatism amongst some of Southeast Asia countries.1 Resettlement and integration in the
1970s and 1980s were also influenced by different belief and generational kinship, the factor
that are still shaping management of refugees in Southeast Asia. In Southeast Asia case, it is

1
Peter Gatrell, The Making of Modern Refugee, 2013, Oxford: The University of Oxford Press, pp. 157.

1
Harry David Kiwanta Sembiring

important to see the problem from regional and states’ perspective simultaneously. Asylum
states should not be encouraging individuals to escape from societies beset by human rights
problems, since such individual solutions undermine communal struggles in the home country.2

The study between regionalism and refugehood laid new framework for refugee’s
regional arrangements. Regional initiatives are important to strengthen the international
refugee protection regime and emphasize the importance of regionalism as a tool for refugee
protection.3 Considering that refugee problems are usually transboundary and involve multiple
state, it can create friction between states with geographical proximity. Hence, regional actors
have a more direct concern in addressing these issues, especially if there are impacts in terms
of regional stability.4 Regional approach to refugee issues will create the most efficient, yet
still impactful way by bringing to the table states that matter the most. This approach will
further be used in the research through the perspective of ASEAN as a regional body in
mediating and solving refugee crises in Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asia, as a region, has experienced crises that might threaten its regional
stability. But none had matched the urgency and influence of refugee crisis the region has been
facing. Rohingya crisis that originated from the alleged ethnic cleansing acts from Burmese
Military challenged the peaceful and non-interference notion that ASEAN and its ten member
states uphold. Considering that ASEAN is made up by multicultural and diverse ethnic
background, the crisis triggered attempt from other member state’s government to have a say
or distort Burmese government’s approach on this issue.

In just two years from 2015-2017, Southeast Asia region has 25,000 people registered
as refugees.5 This number should be much higher if we take Rohingya refugees that fled to
Bangladesh and those who died in their journey seeking asylum. Before some of ASEAN
member states agreed to provide refuge, Rohingya people stranded in boats in the Andaman
Sea for months. International coverage of this issue questioned how far the non-interference
and national sovereignty values can limit one’s willingness to provide humanitarian assistance.

2
Gatrell, pp. 160.
3
Penelope Matthew and Tristan Harley, Refugees, Regionalism and Responsibility, 2016, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 59.
4
Matthew and Harley, pp. 60.
5
Alvin K. Yat and Peter Ventevogel, ‘Culture, Context and Mental Health of Rohingya Refugees’,
UNCHR Review, 2018, pp. 12.

2
Harry David Kiwanta Sembiring

In addition, it is interesting to look at the fact that the head of government of this problematic
military actions was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize few years before.

Before Rohingya refugees crisis, this region had experienced similar crises. In the Cold
War period, the number of Indochinese refugees arose as the Communist declared victory over
Indochina region. In 1999, the occupation of Indonesian military and East Timorese separatist
groups’ revival caused the flow of hundred thousands East Timorese refugees to some
Indonesia’s region.6 In 2016, Christian refugees who fled Pakistan after being targeted for
Taliban’s persecution faced challenges even upon asylum in Thailand and Malaysia.7 The
similarity of this crisis nature further questions how ASEAN as a regional body has been absent
from navigating this region out of this crises. With Rohingya refugees’ scale that is much
bigger and influential, it can be the end of regional stability that ASEAN has managed to
oversee.

It appears that ASEAN’s presence in Southeast Asia’s refugee crises is not visible in
any physical or any humanitarian activities, yet its values exert major influence on the region.
These values are not stopping its member states to lend assistance in mitigating negative
impacts of the crises. However, it could lead to two premises, which are first, it will help
refugees by providing safe refuge; or second, it could create spiral problems of integration and
rights fulfillment by similar socio-cultural situation of each host states in ASEAN. These
possibilities of situation will be assesed on the next part of this essay.

The first possible outcome is that member states that overstep the notion of non-
interference of ASEAN can indeed make the situation less severe. Although it may seem that
this notion is mutually respected, yet some of ASEAN member states has taken a daring step
to approach this issue. Indonesia, for example, has taken major steps, if not controversial in
engaging Myanmar on this issue. Indonesia pressured Myanmar to comply to UN
recommendations regarding the tragedy in Rakhine State. In addition, Indonesian government
also agreed to host Rohingya refugees and as a non-permanent member of the UN Security
Council, Indonesia also committed to efforts to resolve this crisis.8

6
Gatrell, pp. 211.
7
Amnesty International, Between A Rock and A Hard Place: Thailand’s Refugee Policies and Violations
of the Principle of Non-Refoulement, 2017, pp. 12.
8
Nia Norlyanti, ‘Indonesia a Non-Permanent Member of United Nations Security Council: Pursuit of
Peace for Rohingya and Palestine’, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, vol. 241,
2018, pp. 101.

3
Harry David Kiwanta Sembiring

Meanwhile, Malaysia offered similar assistance on hosting refugee in her region before
safe repatriation. But it will unlikely for Malaysia to allow refugees to become citizens. On the
other hand, as one of two states in ASEAN that has ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, the
Philippines offered resettlement of Rohingya refugees to the Philippines. This plan was deemed
promising, but it was a challenge, due to Philippines domestic rejection and geography distance
between Myanmar and the Philippines. Although several countries have lent assistance for
Rohingya refugees, but the actions were limited and further dialogue in a regional forum is
needed to tackle the issue between the parties.

Assistance from respected states in the region can mitigate the negative effects of crises.
However, it only works for a while in the beginning of this crises. Further issues, such as,
integration problems and social acceptance require a far more thorough solution, a sustainable
one, to fully address the crises per se. Failure to do so might result to the second premise of
such assistance, which was argued by the author to be more complex and spiral.

As said before, some more socially complex problems are brought up by the act of
defiance of ASEAN member states. As stated by ASEAN, the regional values of non-
inteference should be upheld without any exception to ensure regional stability and mutual
respect. However, few states are perceived to defy the values in the name of humanity
whatsoever. As responsible as it might seem, these states are still lacking of capacity and
capability to solve such crises. This leads to the current condition that we encounter nowadays
in Southeast Asia that became this essay’s second premise.

As some states agreed upon hosting refugees, the domestic condition of these hosting
states are emphasized by media outlet. In Indonesia, for example, after two years of hosting
refugees in camps, the government is still reluctant to fully integrate the refugees with local
society. Moreover, Indonesian government is facing difficulties to take care of the refugees
because they do not have any specific constitutions or legal foundations, only a presidential
decree on handling foreign refugees. Consequently, the refugees rely mostly on NGOs due to
the absence of refugees status recognition from the state. In addition, Indonesia has not ratified,
not been a party to any international refugee treaties or protocols.

Another severe outcomes from this decision is that many refugees in Southeast Asia
are forced to work underpaid just to survive in the foreign countries that agreed to host them in
the beginning. With a very limited to none working opportunity, refugees in Malaysia are cut

4
Harry David Kiwanta Sembiring

off from their basic economic life.9 In addition, they are barred from attending public school
and are charged for health care. Although Malaysia has agreed to host refugees, but the
government does not have further plan to integrate them to Malaysian society. Malaysia’s
“tolerate but do not integrate” approach on refugees is deemed as a response from
government’s fear that accommodating refugees will draw a flood of new arrivals. This
situation solidifies Gatrell’s view on how nationalism or identity-binded community hardens
the process of hosting refugees. In this case, it is further manifested in Malaysian government
policies that not only discriminate against refugees, but also fail to protect their rights in
Malaysia’s soil.

From both cases we can see developing countries in the same region with similar social
and economic condition tend to put focus on domestic interest rather than to expand its
involvement in altruistic policies. Although at first they helped mitigating foreseeable issue of
rapid flood of refugees, these countries still do not have legal framworks nor material
capabilities to host these refugees in further run. Additionally, this issue can be worsened
because of the fact that none of these hosting countries are parties to the 1951 Refugee
Convention and the 1967 Refugee Protocol. In this case, the refugees are heavily dependant on
international or local non-governmental institutions to help protecting their basic rights. The
lack of refugee status recognition in the region creates problems, such as human rights violation
and migrants exploitation. To some extreme, though it rarely occurs, the case of refoulement
can possibly happen since the hosting countries are not binded by any legal framework.

Tackling the severe possible outcomes of refugee influx in the region, the existence of
ASEAN should be highlighted in future proceeding. As indicated that regional initiatives, such
as ASEAN, should be the tool for regional refugee protection. Although ASEAN is binded by
the sacred value of non-interference, it could do much more than just overlooks the problems.
Within its human rights protection body, AICHR (ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights), big progress is being made. In 2020, the body will review ASEAN’s
procedures on approaching human rights issue by dismantling the current term of reference
(ToR) and establishing a new one, which will be more protective and solutive towards the issue,
instead of acting as monitoring body.10 This big change, proposed by the Committee of

9
Katrina Munir-Asen, (Re)negotiating Refugee Protection in Malaysia: Implication for Future Policy in
Refugee Management, 2018, Bonn: Deutsches Intitut fur Entwicklungspolitik, pp. 14-18.
10
ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, Towards a Stronger ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism
(Online), 2019, <https://aseanmp.org/2019/06/17/toward-a-stronger-asean-human-rights-mechanism/ >,
accessed on 13 December 2020.

5
Harry David Kiwanta Sembiring

Permanent Representative (CPR) of ASEAN will bring effective utilization of the body in
overseeing the issue of refugee in the region.

In addition, ASEAN could find alternatives to address the issue in the subtle way. This
point was shown by its work in engaging its dialogue partners to address the issue of refugee,
instead of being involved to the issue directly. The efforts of multilateral humanitarian
diplomacy conducted by ASEAN has come into fruition. Earlier in 2020, the government of
the Republic of Korea, one prominent partner of ASEAN, agreed to fund the process of safe
repatriation in Rakhine State and to assist refugee management in some ASEAN countries. It
was the work from external stakeholder indeed, but ASEAN played major role in realizing it.
This kind of cooperation can somehow emphasize ASEAN’s role as a regional initiative in
addressing refugeehood in the region.

Overall, the complicated nature of refugee issue in Southeast Asia is further convoluted
by the regional values upheld by ASEAN. This condition could result in severe future outcomes
that might disturb stability in the region. Thus, a regional governing body, like ASEAN, should
have a thorough and effective proceedings in approaching the issue. Withal, as a regional body,
ASEAN is expected to take a more feasible role in facilitating dialogues between parties and
in encouraging cooperations to address the issues for all. It is hopeful that with the
empowerment of ASEAN’s role as a regional body, the bad outcomes of refugee crisis will be
mitigated and regional stability will not be disrupted in the future.

6
Harry David Kiwanta Sembiring

Bibliography

Amnesty International. (2017). Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Thailand's Refugee
Policies and Violations of the Principle of Non-Refoulement. London: Amnesty
International Ltd.
APHR. (2019, June 17). Toward a stronger ASEAN human rights mechanism. Diambil
kembali dari ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights: Toward a stronger ASEAN
human rights mechanism
Gatrell, P. (2013). The Making of Modern Refugee. Oxford: The University of Oxford Press.
Matthew, P., & Harley, T. (2016). Refugees, Regionalism and Responsibility. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Munir-Asen, K. (2018). (Re)negotiating Refugee Protection in Malaysia: Implication for
Future Policy in Refugee Management. Bonn: Deutsches Institut fur
Entwicklungspolitik.
Norlyanti, N. (2018). Indonesia a Non-Permanent Member of United Nations Security
Council: Pursuit of Peace for Rohingya and Palestine. Advances in Social Science,
Education and Humanities Research, Vol. 241, 99-105.
Yat, A., & Ventevogel, P. (2018). Culture, Context and Mental Health of Rohingya Refugees.
UNHCR.