Families carry their belongings through the Zosin border crossing in Poland after fleeing Ukraine. The number of refugees worldwide has risen markedly in the recent past, reaching a record high in April 2022 of more than 30 million. Credit: UNHCR/Chris Melzer

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Apr 11 2022 (IPS)

Twilight for the 1951 Refugee Convention is becoming a 21st century reality for an increasing number of countries worldwide.

Since the Convention’s adoption, the world’s population has more than tripled and is now approximately 8,000,000,000 people. The planet’s population growth is expected to continue and likely increase to 10,000,000,000 human inhabitants around mid-century. Nearly all of that demographic growth is projected to take place in developing countries, many of which face resource scarcity, difficult living conditions, and socio-political turmoil.

In addition, climate change is forcing increased human mobility, which is projected to worsen with global warming. And non-stop waves of men, women and children largely from developing countries continue attempting unauthorized entry mainly into developed countries.

The world is also experiencing record levels of refugees, asylum seekers and persons displaced across borders. The number of refugees worldwide has risen markedly in the recent past, reaching a record high in April 2022 of more than 30 million.

That global figure includes 21 million refugees under UNHCR’s mandate and 6 million Palestinian refugees under UNRWA’s mandate as well as 4 million people as of mid-April who fled Ukraine due to Russia’s invasion. Today’s global number of refugees is rapidly approaching a three-fold increase since the start of the 21st century (Figure 1).

Source: UNHCR.

In addition to the more than 30 million refugees, 4 million Venezuelans are displaced abroad. Also, more than 4 million people are asylum seekers, with the global level of asylum claims having increased four-fold over the levels a decade ago.

In the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the cold war, the Refugee Convention was drafted and signed by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, held at Geneva from 2 to 25 July 1951.

The Convention and its subsequent 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees provide the foundation for today’s international refugee regime. They are the primary international legal documents that define the term “refugee”, outline the rights of refugees and responsibilities of countries, and indicate the institutions protecting refugees.

Article 1A(1) of the Convention defines refugee as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

However, the term “refugee” is often used more broadly and loosely than its legal definition. For example, colloquial and media usage, general public discourse and political remarks often include individuals seeking refuge and a better life but do not meet the Convention’s criteria for a refugee.

A core refugee principle is “non-refoulement”. That principle states that a refugee should not be returned to a place where their life or freedom would be threatened on grounds of race, religion, nationality, and membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Most of the United Nations Member States, some 149 countries, have signed or ratified either the Convention, its Protocol or both. The remaining 44 countries, many of which are the top refugee-hosting countries, are not parties to them.

However, the actions of nations regarding refugees are not directly correlated with whether they are a party to the Convention or Protocol. In fact, many signatories to the Convention and Protocol do not honor their protection responsibilities regarding refugees, often believing it’s somebody else’s problem. Increasingly, refugee protections are politicized and seen at odds with national interests and priorities.

Closely related to the refugee documents is Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the right to seek asylum. That provision states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” However, to be granted asylum, a person typically needs to meet the standards of the legal definition of a refugee.

Poverty, the lack of employment, housing, education and health care, poor governance, climate change, and crime are generally not considered legitimate grounds for granting asylum. Therefore, in most instances, claims for asylum are denied because they do not to meet the definition of a refugee.

In the United States, for example, approximately two thirds of asylum claims were denied in the past two years. Higher rates of asylum claims in 2020 denied in the first instance occurred in some European countries, such as Hungary at nearly 90 percent, Italy at 86 percent, and France at 84 percent.

Concerns about the record numbers of refugees, asylum seekers, and people displaced across borders led to the Global Compact on Refugees, which was launched in 2018. The Compact was intended to improve and better coordinate responses of the international community and host countries. However, the Compact, which was voluntary and nonbinding, offered promises and suggestions without an implementation plan and clear measures of progress.

The record levels of displacement are straining the international refugee system. Humanitarian agencies and refugee host countries, which are predominantly in developing countries such as Turkey, Colombia and Uganda, and more recently Poland, are struggling to provide the basic daily needs to the growing numbers of men, women and children.

Nearly all of the projected 1.8 billion additional people by mid-century will occur in less developed countries. For example, whereas Africa is projected to add more than 1 billion people to its population by midcentury, Europe’s population is expected to decline by nearly 40 million over the next three decades (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations.

Economic hardship, poverty, social unrest, and conflicts are also increasing the likelihood of future flows of refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced persons. Many people who have little chance of emigrating legally can be expected to resort to unauthorized migration.

To gain entry into their destination country, many unauthorized migrants claim asylum even though most claims subsequently turn out not to meet the legal standards for being granted asylum. Based on the experiences of the past, growing numbers of unauthorized migrants believe that claiming asylum permits them to enter and remain in the country even if their claim is eventually denied, which typically takes lengthy periods to be adjudicated.

The consequences of such migration are seriously challenging governments. Recent international survey data find that the world is becoming less tolerant of migrants, especially when the migrants differ ethnically, religiously, and culturally from the host country population. Reconciling border security, national sovereignty, cultural integrity, and basic human rights remains a major challenge for the major migrant-receiving countries.

In addition, climate-related migration is expected to become a more critical issue in the coming years. Increasing numbers of people, particularly in developing regions, will be forced to adapt to global warming and changing environmental conditions, with many becoming “climate refugees”. A recent landmark ruling by the United Nations Human Rights Committee found it unlawful for governments to return migrants to countries where their lives might be threatened by a climate crisis.

In general, the responses to today’s formidable migratory challenges of increasing numbers of refugees, asylum seekers, unauthorized migrants, and persons displaced across borders are not encouraging. Those responses include more walls, barriers, and fences, increasing numbers of border guards, sea patrols, pushbacks, and detention centers, strengthening of right-wing nationalists, increasing xenophobia, heightened fears of terrorism and crime, and, importantly, shirking protection responsibilities.

In virtually every major region, governments are behaving as though the 1951 Refugee Convention is outdated, ineffectual, and incongruent with national interests. In brief, in more and more countries, it’s twilight for the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Tamils protest Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa's speech at the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 24, 2013. Credit: Samuel Oakford/IPS

By Kalinga Seneviratne
SINGAPORE, Jun 12 2014 (IPS)

The recent arrest and deportation from Malaysia of three Sri Lankan Tamils on U.N. refugee status, under suspicion of trying to revive the disbanded Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), has raised questions about regional security and minority politics.

For many, disputes over the South China Sea and the proliferation of Islamic terror networks are the defining peace and security issues in South and Southeast Asia. As a result, the arrests of the three men last month went largely unreported, with the exception of local Malaysian and Sri Lankan media.

But with a large and restive Tamil minority in South India, huge Tamil diasporas in Malaysia, Singapore and Mauritius, as well as unhealed wounds from the recently concluded civil war in Sri Lanka that decimated the separatist LTTE, experts say that Tamil nationalist aspirations could end up shaping regional politics.

“About 90 percent of Malaysian Tamils are ardent supporters of the Tamil freedom movement in Sri Lanka. Is the [police inspector-general] going to arrest more than two million of us just because we support their struggle?” -- P. Ramasamy, deputy chief minister of Penang state
Created in 1976 with the aim of carving out an independent state for Tamil people in the north and east of Sri Lanka, the group quickly went on to become synonymous with suicide bombers and child soldiers, earning it the title of one of the most deadly terrorist organisations in the world.

Considered defunct since 2009, when the Sri Lankan army stormed the remaining rebel-held territory and eradicated its top leadership in the final phase of the country’s 30-year-long civil war, the LTTE still holds a powerful place in the collective imaginary of the region.

Referring to the May 15 arrest of the three Tamil men by Malaysian police under a Red Notice issued by Interpol, a regional terrorism expert speaking to IPS on the condition of anonymity said this was a significant development in thwarting attempts to revive the LTTE in Malaysia under the cover of U.N. refugee status.

The arrests followed hard on the heels of another deportation from Malaysia, in March this year, of the deputy leader of the LTTE’s international network, Nanthagopan, who was arrested in Iran on a tip-off from Sri Lanka and sent back to Malaysia before being subsequently deported to Colombo.

In announcing the arrests, Malaysian Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar charged that the suspected persons had “used Malaysia as a base to collect funds, spread their propaganda, and were attempting to revive the defunct terrorist group at the international level.”

Police also seized propaganda material promoting the LTTE and a large amount of cash in over 24 different currencies.

The alleged offenders, registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), had been living in the country without visas since 2004.

“We will not allow the country to be used as a place for them to hide or conduct any terror activities in the country or on foreign soil,” the inspector-general stressed, adding that the UNHCR office in Malaysia should undertake a thorough review of its procedures to ensure that terrorist suspects don’t abuse its offices for activities that threaten regional stability.

He also pledged to screen the roughly 4,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in Malaysia in efforts to “flush out” suspected terrorists.

A spokesperson for UNHCR in Malaysia, Yante Ismail, told IPS that while the High Commissioner’s office cannot comment on individual cases, they did urge the Malaysian government not to deport the three suspects until investigations could be completed.

“UNHCR regrets that despite our representations to the Malaysian Government, this group has been deported to a place where they may be at serious risk of harm,” she said.

UNHCR is not alone in its concern – since 1983 thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils have sought refugee status in other countries on the grounds that their rights have been trampled upon by the majority-Sinhalese state.

Unresolved charges that the Sri Lankan army committed war crimes against the minority population during the last days of the conflict, coupled with reports that Tamils have experienced systematic detention in the years following the war, add to the fear that some Tamils are not safe in Sri Lanka.

But since Malaysia is not a State Party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the government is not bound by UNHCR guidelines.

Others believe the issue runs deeper than just regional security.

P. Ramasamy, deputy chief minister of Malaysia’s northwestern Penang state, who acted as a legal advisor to the LTTE during peace negotiations a decade ago, has accused the Malaysian police of falling into the trap set by the Sri Lankan government to frustrate international efforts to conduct a full investigation into possible rights violations in the country.

“About 90 percent of Malaysian Tamils are ardent supporters of the Tamil freedom movement in Sri Lanka. Is Khalid [Abu Bakar] going to arrest more than two million of us just because we support their struggle?” he remarked in an interview with The Edge.

Roughly eight percent of Malaysia’s population of some 29 million people is Tamil, mainly descendants of indentured labourers brought by the British to work in the rubber plantations in the 19^th century.

At the height of the HINDRAF rebellion in December 2007, the then Malaysian police chief Mussa Hassan accused the group of “actively canvassing for support and assistance from terrorist groups”, including the LTTE.

HINDRAF’s leaders were subsequently arrested and jailed under the Internal Security Act and the movement officially banned in October 2008. However, in January 2013 the ban was lifted and in April HINDRAF signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the governing Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition to work towards uplifting the Tamil community.

According to Ramanathan Sankaran, a scholar on the Indian diaspora in Malaysia, many Malaysian Tamils are sympathetic to the cause of Sri Lanka’s minority and have thus supported the LTTE. HINDRAF once represented these sympathies but since joining the ruling government has been much more cautious in its message.

“My support for HINDRAF has declined because they did not make any comments on the arrest and deportations,” Sankaran told IPS, adding, “Their failure to act on this matter is a disgrace.”

Some say the Malaysian government’s biggest fear is the reawakening of the sentiment once expressed by HINDRAF, and the radicalisation of Malaysian Tamils.

The government has been particularly concerned about the recent creation of a group calling itself the Tamilar Progressive Team, which is modeled on a similar group in India’s southern state of Tamil Nadu that one of the arrestees – 38-year-old Selvathurai Kirubananthan, also known as Anbarasan – is alleged to have been involved with.

Other experts, like leading Malaysian rights activist Chandra Muzafar, say these fears are unfounded.

“Tamil support for the ruling coalition has been increasing since the last General Election in May 2013,” he told IPS. The more likely scenario, he says, is that the Malaysian government is legitimately apprehensive about Sri Lankan Tamils “using Malaysia as a base to revive the LTTE.”

(END)

Australians protest in Sydney against the new 'PNG Solution' for asylum seekers. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

By Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Aug 5 2013 (IPS)

The Australian asylum policy of rejecting boat arrivals has been condemned by the United Nations Refugee Agency, Pacific island leaders, migration experts and human rights organisations.

A new Regional Settlement Arrangement agreed between Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill, announced less than two months ahead of an Australian national election, will see the removal of asylum seekers for refugee processing and resettlement in the neighbouring Pacific Island state of Papua New Guinea (PNG) located north of Australia, for an initial period of one year.

At least 70 asylum seekers have already been flown to the PNG-based Manus Island detention centre under the new deal.

On Aug. 3, Australia announced a similar arrangement with the tiny 21-square-kilometre South Pacific nation of Nauru, situated 4,500 km north-east of Australia, which also hosts an Australian offshore asylum seeker detention centre. According to an official Nauru spokesperson refugees will have temporary residence only.

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) said it was “troubled by the absence of adequate protection standards and safeguards for asylum seekers and refugees in Papua New Guinea,” and that the new arrangement “raises serious and, so far, unanswered protection questions.”

It said poor administrative capacity and physical conditions for refugees are likely to be “harmful to the physical and psycho-social wellbeing of transferees, particularly families and children.”

The UNHCR reiterated that countries should “grant protection within their own territory, regardless of how [refugees] have arrived.”

PNG, a Melanesian nation of seven million, is signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, but has reservations on the rights of refugees to basic services such as employment, housing and education.

The country is ranked 156 out of 187 countries for development, and has limited capacity to absorb tens of thousands of additional refugees from another state.

In exchange for taking Australia’s asylum seekers, PNG will receive an additional aid package worth 507.2 million Australian dollars (452 million U.S. dollars).

According to Australia, the new policy aims to stop people smugglers and deter refugees from taking dangerous journeys in unseaworthy vessels.

However, Hadi, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan who arrived by boat and settled as a refugee in Australia in 2011, told IPS that the new arrangement was an “election stunt using people who have no voice.

“It will not make any difference. People who are getting on boats are desperate. They are leaving their countries to survive,” he declared.

In August last year, Australia announced a ‘no advantage’ immigration policy directed at asylum seekers and announced it was reinstating offshore detention centres in PNG and Nauru. But unannounced maritime arrivals have increased rather than decreased, with 17,202 last year and about 15,000 so far in 2013.

The number of asylum seekers that Australia receives is very low. Last year 15,790 or three percent of the total of 479,270 global asylum applications were lodged in the country, compared to the United States which received 83,430, or 17 percent of the world share, and Germany and France which received 64,540 and 54,940 respectively.

Most of those arriving in Australia originate from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Sri Lanka, and 90 percent are recognised as refugees.

Will Jones at the Refugee Studies Centre of the University of Oxford told IPS that given Australia’s minor share of the world’s asylum seekers, the new policy was “completely disproportionate, extraordinarily expensive, and inefficient” for processing refugees.

In 2011-2012, Australia’s Department of Immigration incurred expenses of 1.4 million Australian dollars (1.2 million U.S. dollars) for offshore asylum seeker management, almost half the department’s total costs, compared to 95,272 Australian dollars (85 million U.S. dollars) spent on managing asylum seeker processing within Australia.

Refugee organisations have said that the new strategy jeopardises the protection of vulnerable people already suffering from trauma and displacement, who face an unacceptably poor framework of support.

At present asylum seekers are detained in makeshift facilities designed for approximately 500 people on Manus Island. Last month, following an inspection, the UNHCR reported that “the current arrangements still do not meet international protection standards for the reception and treatment of asylum seekers.”

It reported harsh living conditions and poor standards of privacy, hygiene and access to medical services.

The Australian government claims it will complete a permanent detention centre on the island in 2014 and meet the costs of the new settlement policy, but PNG will be responsible for all refugee assessments.

Dr Ray Anere of the National Research Institute in PNG capital Port Moresby said the country is yet to establish a legal framework, national policy and adequate administrative mechanisms to address the needs of asylum seekers, as well as “provision of proper medical, accommodation and other basic services.”

PNG currently hosts an estimated refugee population of 9,500 with many entirely dependent on support from humanitarian and charitable organisations. They are especially vulnerable to high levels of human insecurity in a nation facing serious domestic challenges of basic service delivery, high unemployment and crime, widely prevalent gender violence and inadequate law enforcement.

Unaccompanied minors arriving by boat face particular risks following the Australian government’s assertion that they will not be reunited with families in Australia. This is despite commitments to the best interests of children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and UNHCR’s settlement guidelines, which stipulate that no action should be taken to hinder family reunification for unaccompanied minors.

Resentment has quickly emerged in the south-west Pacific against the refugee settlement ‘deal’ as an unwelcome imposition on neighbouring small island developing states and an abdication by Australia of its humanitarian responsibilities.

There have been public denouncements by Fiji’s foreign minister, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, and former PNG prime minister Sir Michael Somare. PNG opposition leader Belden Namah has renewed a legal challenge to Australia’s asylum seeker detention centre, in the country’s Supreme Court.

Local political commentator Deni ToKunai, known as Tavurvur, told IPS that “opposition to the new arrangement is extensive in PNG,” and “the real source of division will come from the public sphere and be focussed on the key issues of processing and settling asylum seekers when the permanent processing centre is built.”