Indonesia Refugee Crisis PPT PDF

Global crimes (border criminology) VALERIA FERRARIS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 2-4 PM Refugee Reception in Indonesia Geography matters 17,000 islands easy to accommodat e refugees out of sight but also porous and difficult to control...

Global crimes (border criminology) VALERIA FERRARIS THURSDAY AND FRIDAY 2-4 PM Refugee Reception in Indonesia Geography matters 17,000 islands easy to accommodat e refugees out of sight but also porous and difficult to control Refugee Flow into Indonesia during the Reformation Era (2003-2018) Based on the Country of Origin. Source: data from UNHCR, 2019 Suggestion: https://www.roshanlearning.org/refugees-in-indonesia  Transit State Indonesia is not a signatory to 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol and views itself as a temporary host. Ad Hoc Approach &discretion Immigration policies are mainly reactive, driven by Key Concepts circumstances rather than a long-term strategy. The fluctuations are based on the political context, the international pressure, and the public sentiment. From punitive segregation to benevolent neglect Immigration detention, Alternatives to detention, autonomous living  Humanitarianism without obligations Indonesia's acceptance of refugees is voluntary, based on humanitarian reasons, and not is tied to international law. Containment Strategy Key Concepts The Refugees are often restricted to certain locations, limiting their movement and autonomy. Focus is mainly on transit rather than permanent integration. This containment serves both humanitarian goals (by providing temporary refuge) and political ones (by limiting refugees' impact on local communities). Containment is reached also by other means than detention  Galang Island Camp (1979-1996) The Galang Refugee Camp was established during the Vietnamese Refugee crisis and functioned as a transit camp for over 17 years, processing up to 145,000 refugees, most resettled in the USA, Canada, Australia, France. The Camp was supported by international aid, supposed to be a temporary stop for refugees waiting relocation. Primarily managed by Indonesian authorities, UN and NGOs service providers (health and teaching). Poor living condition, abuse and violence Late 1980s the Comprehensive Plan of Action introduced the idea of screening à resettlement was not anymore an equal opportunity for everybody. The camp has become a museum, symbolizing Indonesia’s humanitarian response. Transition Phase to detention (mid-1990 – early 2000) Shift from traditional refugee camps to immigration detention centres in the 1990s and early 2000s. Transit country for Afghan, Iraqi, and Iranian nationals coming with short visa by air. No political priority. Just Waiting people move to Australia. Rise of smuggling industry and pushback from Australia In 2002 people transferred to Lombok Island, no resettlement but no return. Australia set the scene (2004-2012) Relocation to Cisarua in Java Island next to Jakarta. New waves coming from Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Somalia. About 17,000 people arrived to Australia from Indonesia between 2009-2012. Pressure from Australia to make Indonesia a containment country, funded by Australia. Immigration detention centres (2012- 13 permanent facilities and 20 temporary nes Originally only criminals then refugees in arbitrary detention (no max length, no judicial review) Dramatic living conditions and violence (despite Australian & IOM money) Lack of regulation and discretion Protests, breakouts, public outcries push to a change Alternatives to Detention (2011-) Emergence of ATDs in the early 2010s was mainly due to the insufficient capacity in the detention centres. ATDs included community shelters, hotels, and low-cost housing under the IOM's guidance. ATD expansion post-2011, driven by international pressure (2014 UNHCR beyond detention strategy) and funding from Australia. Procedure à Refugees would have to be detained then assigned to IOM and relocate to these facilities  Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Similarly to detention centres no rules and no common standards Pros => Greater mobility, less crowded conditions, better humanitarian standards. Cons => Still limited refugees’ socio-economic rights (e.g., right to work, education), created dependency. Limbo is a constant feature. Autonomous Living and Urban Refugees (2013-) Pushbacks from Australia, Funds reduction to IOM (Australia’s deterrence doctrine. Pushbacks also reduce arrivals to Indonesia therefore money are nolnger needed) Urban refugees in Indonesia often work in the informal economy due to restrictions on formal employment. Challenges include a legal status ambiguity, the inability to work legally, and social exclusion. Legal and bureaucratic barriers limit access to healthcare, education, and employment. Some communities have shown solidarity, but the refugees often face suspicion and hostility. Socially, refugees can enrich urban culture, but many remain isolated, forming distinct communities that may lead to segregation and distrust. Their presence can strain public services, heightening local frustrations, as seen in protests in Jakarta's Kalideres district, where refugees highlighted their lack of support. The Rohingya Case in Aceh  The Rohingya Case in Aceh Aceh has become a key transit hub for Rohingya refugees willing to move to Myanmar. 2012-2015 about 112,500 Rohingya attemped the journey In 2015 (Andaman Sea crisis) 1,800 Rohingya were disembarked in Indonesia located n make shift camps then relocated in ATD (Medan and Pekanbaru). Local communities welcomed these refugees. 2020-2022 1,600 Rohingya came to Aceh. By January 2023, 1,677. More women and children, more people willing to stay. Local population attitudes shifted due to economic concerns and fears of prolonged refugee presence.  The Rohingya Case in Aceh Local villagers pushed refugee boats back to sea. The government’s reluctance to relocate refugees to better- equipped areas has deepened the issue, resulting in overcrowded makeshift camps with inadequate facilities. International organizations continue to provide essential support, but within a more difficult scenery due to the obstacles from Indonesia government. Arrangement in makeshift are varied. The reliance on foreign aid often sparks envy among local populations.  The Rohingya Case in Aceh The resentment has led to tensions, including protests and sporadic violence in some camps. Camps were increasingly secluded and built far form local community. Despite these challenges, some civil society groups and local organizations have stepped in to provide basic necessities, underscoring the mixed responses within Indonesian society to the Rohingya crisis.  Ø Role of International Organizations The UNHCR and IOM are central to supporting refugees in Indonesia, providing essential services like food, shelter, and healthcare. However, their effectiveness often depends on the cooperation from the Indonesian government, which can be extremely inconsistent. Ø Funding and Foreign Influence Much of the funding for refugee management comes from international Current Issues donors, such as Australia and the European Union. Australia has a vested interest in Indonesia's containment policies, funding their detention facilities (and alternatives) to prevent refugee movement towards its own and International borders. Ø Criticisms of Indonesia’s Approach Involvement Human rights groups have criticized Indonesia for prioritizing containment over integration. Refugees face restricted mobility, limited access to work, and prolonged waiting periods for resettlement, creating dependency and despair. Ø Balancing Domestic and International Pressures The country is subject to complex pressures, balancing international expectations to act humanely, with domestic concerns over social and economic impacts. Public opinion, often shaped by xenophobic tendencies, further complicates policy decisions  Lack of a comprehensive Human rights refugee policy issues persist, makes with limited signs Indonesia’s of future policy response changes. unpredictable. Key Takeaways What are the Containment possible developments Humanitarianism Future Outlook? and potential international pressure changes in response to global pressure?