Issue 30: December 5, 2022
In this issue...
We're covering how Malaysia's recent election will affect refugee policy within the nation, the deterioration of Turkey's treatment of Syrian refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war, and a recent agreement between the United Kingdom and Rwanda that endangers refugees' wellbeing. We're also covering a recent deal between the UK and France that inhibits immigration crossings of the English Channel.
General Election in Malaysia Gives Rise to Concerns for Refugee Treatment
By Harrison Huang
The 15th general election of Malaysia, also known as GE2022, will determine the new Prime Minister and seats in Malaysia’s bicameral parliament. As of November 25th, 2022, 221 of the 222 seats have been confirmed, according to the Strait Times. The new government of Malaysia comprises a slight majority of the Alliance of Hope (Pakatan Harapan), followed by the Malaysian United Indigenous Party (Perikatan Nasional). The new Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, will lead a unity government that represents the interests of multiple parties.
Upon his inauguration, Anwar made his promise to be a religiously tolerant leader. He pledged to protect the rights of all Malaysian citizens, regardless of race or religion. However, when asked if he would extend the citizenship status to refugees in an interview, Anwar hesitates: “I mean, we treat them as human beings, but you cannot give all refugees equal rights as Malaysians. [...] We cannot give equal treatment as citizens.”
His stance on refugees has raised concerns within the international community. Because Malaysia is not a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, UNHCR faces many impediments while operating in the country, where refugees and immigrants face harassment by officials, including but not limited to “detention, prosecution, whipping, and deportation.” Despite UNHCR’s continued push for the Government to become a signatory, the government of Malaysia has made little progress in creating a legal protection framework for asylum seekers.
Yet more and more refugees are flowing into the country, a majority of which are Rohingyas fleeing from the ongoing religious persecution in Myanmar. Refugees, asylum seekers, and stateless persons totaled 230,900, a number that is still on the rise.
Pakatan Harapan, the majority party led by Anwar, has promised to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and open up humanitarian aid to refugees in Malaysia. This will be the first move towards the eventual acceptance of refugees and Malaysia’s status as a stable and sustainable host country. The country still has a long way to go, though. To date, Malaysia has yet to sign other international treaties on human rights, namely the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
Below are some reliable resources if you want to…
Turkish Response to Syrian Refugee Crisis Grows Harsher as Syrian Instability Continues
By Jack Elworth
In 2011 at the outset of the Syrian civil war, Turkey adopted an open-door policy for expected waves of refugees from Syria despite the fact that, according to a 2012 Metropoll survey, 52% of the Turkish public held a negative opinion of Syrians. The Turkish government vowed to welcome all those fleeing Syria, to provide humanitarian aid to them, and, reflecting the international legal principle of non refoulement, to not deport these people against their will.
More than a decade later, Human Rights Watch accused the Turkish government of arbitrarily detaining and deporting, abusing, and coercing Syrian refugees, all in violation of international law. So, how did a nation once lauded for its generosity towards refugees become so entangled in accusations of human rights violations?
​
In 2011 as protests sparked the Syrian civil war, Turkey was a nation ambivalent towards Syrians but with a sense of moral obligation to aid its neighbor. However, at the time, the proposition of accepting refugees was much simpler than it is today: the Syrian civil war had just begun, and it seemed entirely possible for Turkish politicians to fulfill their promise to repatriate Syrians (rather than integrating them into Turkish society). After a decade and counting, it is apparent to pundits and Turkish politicians alike that repatriation is not in the cards.
​
11 years later, Syria is more war-torn than ever. Government forces, a US-led coalition, an opposition government, assorted rebel armies, and a terrorist organization variously war with each other. There’s no obvious resolution in sight, much less one which would make it safe for refugees to return. Turkey forces deported Syrians to return to razed homes and a war-torn nation. But domestic pushback against Syrian refugees provides an impetus for their expulsion to an unstable and dangerous nation.
Though an ocean away, the story of the rise of nationalistic and anti-immigrant sentiment in Turkey may sound familiar to American audiences. Over the past decade, the strain of the open-border policy has engendered public animus towards Syrians in Turkey. Erdogan and most Turkish politicians have attempted to carefully negotiate a path forward. While Syrians in Turkey are wildly unpopular—a 2018 poll showed that 83% of Turks held a negative opinion of Syrians—politicians know, despite their nativist rhetoric, that Syrian repatriation is but a pipe dream. As a result, Turkey walks a fine line between recognition of Syrians as legal refugees and total denial of Syrians fleeing their ravaged home.
​
Whether Turkish deportations of Syrians in Turkey constitute a violation of international law hinges on whether or not one considers those who fled the Syrian civil war to Turkey refugees. The answer seems obvious: by most definitions, people who flee violence into a neighboring nation would be considered refugees. But the Turkish government has been careful not to consider these people, whom the IHA and other media refer to as “refugees” in the common sense, legal refugees. Legal refugee status would grant these Syrians a wide range of protections under international law and would make Turkey’s recent actions unlawful.
​
The two most important international laws governing refugees are the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees: the pair establishes the foundational principles of international refugee law. Topically, the 1967 addition removed an option to place a geographic limitation to the obligations of the 1951 convention—previously, 1951 signatories could choose to apply the law only to European refugees. But, according to the Center for American Progress, another part of the 1967 Protocol ‘grandfathered’ in the right of original signatories to maintain the geographic limitation on refugees. Turkey was an original signatory and as such asserts that they have no obligation at all to treat the Syrians as legal immigrants. As a result, the Turkish maltreatment of Syrian refugees remains unchecked as instability and displacement in Syria only continues.
New United Kingdom Agreement with Rwanda Threatens Refugee Safety
By Luisfe Medina
In April 2022, the United Kingdom and Rwanda signed an agreement that effectively relocates people seeking asylum in the UK to Rwanda as a permanent destination. In an official statement on June 28, 2022, the Parliament of the United Kingdom called the agreement a five year “Migration and Economic Development Partnership.” The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, a party which has led the country since 2010, initiated the development of the agreement with the goals of reallocating a large portion of the funds given to the UK Refugee Council (UKRC) and limiting entry to what the Party argues may be “criminal gangs.” However, the controversial UK-Rwanda “Migration and Economic Development Partnership” may violate international law, causing resistance from major global organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
By Harrison Huang
The UK-Rwanda Agreement faced heavy backlash from international organizations almost immediately after the United Kingdom House of Commons had announced it. According to the Article 26 of the UNHCR’s 1951 Global Refugee Convention—a document in which twenty six countries, including the United Kingdom, agreed to follow certain provisions about refugee treatment—refugees hold the right to choose their location of residence and the right to move unrestricted and freely around the territory of the country they applied to live in. The UK-Rwanda Agreement inherently violates Article 26 of the convention, as the United Kingdom intends to illegally send refugees that wish to live within its territory to an entirely different country in Rwanda without regard for the desires of the refugees themselves. The agreement also violates Article 31 of the Convention, which states that no asylum seeker shall have penalties imposed upon them. Other major organizations, such as the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and the ODI, have also firmly taken stances against the controversial agreement and are funding the aid of refugees currently being sent to Rwanda.
​
It is unclear whether Rwanda is actually able to present the relocated refugees with basic human necessities. Rwanda remains a developing nation; according to a 2022 report from the World Bank, Rwanda has a high poverty rate of 56%, meaning that over half of Rwandans live in poverty and unstable conditions. As of now, the Rwandan government itself has claimed that the country is only capable of taking in 100 refugees, for they have only set up one hostel since the agreement’s signing in April, 2022. Subsistence farmers make up the vast majority of the Rwandan workforce, but due to Rwanda’s arid climate, the economy of the nation has remained quite weak. According to a 2021 report from the World Bank, public debt has also been worryingly steadily increasing over the past few years.
However, the United Kingdom is not the only country to have struck a deal with the Rwandan government regarding the relocation of asylum seekers; in April 2022, the Danish government also sought to externalize migration management and signed an agreement with the Rwandan government that plans to send over 1,000 asylum seekers to Rwanda. According to a report by the UNHCR, other well-developed, “first world” nations, such as the United States, externalize migration by “exporting” or “deporting” asylum seekers.
​
By forcing refugees to move to nations they do not intend to move to, Western nations not only harm refugees, but also ignore their responsibility to uphold human rights. If you would like to help asylum seekers, please consider donating to the IRC, UNHCR, or Refugee Point. Links to donate to other reputable refugee organizations are available on our “Take Action” page.
France Agrees to Prevent Immigration Crossings of English Channel into Britain After Recent Deal
By Nick Costantino
England signed an agreement with France in November that prevents migrants from entering England by crossing the English Channel via boat, paying France $74.5 million, an increase of $9.6 million from the previous deal. This increase is due to a substantial influx of immigrants this year which will likely keep rising, reaching 50,000 by the end of the year, according to a report by the BBC. The agreement includes an increase of French police officers patrolling the beaches on the English Channel and English observers in France to oversee the operations.
​
Both countries’ political parties have become more fearful and opposed to immigration, especially in the last 10 years after the Syrian civil war caused a massive influx of immigration the likes of which had not been seen since World War II. Thus, this deal is just another step to limit immigration into England and, by extension, France.
Far-right extremism has become more popular in these countries, especially in France, which, in their last presidential election, almost elected a candidate who wants a moratorium on legal immigration and a repealing of laws that allow illegal immigrants to become legal residents. Many have also called for hijabs to be banned in schools with the justification that France is a secular nation that does not subscribe to any faith. This deal will decrease the amount of dangerous voyages across the English Channel, which will thus decrease deaths from this crossing but will also increase the number of people that get arrested for trying.
​
The Channel has become notoriously dangerous over the years as more refugees attempt to make the journey with small boats or life rafts that are not built for the trek, and England and France have not always raced to rescue those who become lost at sea. Last year, 27 people died in a failed attempt to cross the English Channel, even though the French Coast Guard received calls for help from this boat. The French Coast Guard declined to help, citing that the migrants were in English waters at the time of the call, according to the New York Times.
Though the recent deal may reduce deaths from the crossing, it will not eliminate them entirely, nor will it solve the larger problems about migration in the region. The fundamental issue fueling the crossings in the first place is the absence of administrative infrastructure for these refugees; according to a report by Euronews, only 4 percent of asylum applications were fully processed in 2021, and it takes an average of 16 months for an asylee’s application to be processed.
​
England’s deal with France will only prolong and propagate the migration issues each nation faces. In order to solve these issues, more robust systems and infrastructure must be implemented in both countries to ensure that all legitimate migrants can safely and legally move and be processed.