I

n May 2015, Indonesia generously accepted hundreds of Rohingya, a persecuted ethnic Muslim minority from Myanmar, into temporary safety in Aceh and North Sumatra. This act was universally applauded as it showed Indonesia’s humanitarian stance toward refugees. This action also represented Indonesia as a true and sincere leader on issues of refugees and asylum seekers.

The same generosity, unfortunately, was not initially extended to 44 Sri Lankans whose boat ran aground on Lhok Nga beach in Aceh on June 14. The refugees were reportedly attempting to reach Christmas Island, an Australian territory, to seek asylum there. For this reason, the local authorities initially refused to allow the Sri Lankans to get off the boat until intervention from the government and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR).

The local immigration head reportedly stated that the authorities had refused to allow the individuals to get off the boat because their destination was Australia, not Indonesia. Local authorities provided food and water and repaired the boat’s engine to ensure the Sri Lankans were able to proceed with their journey to Christmas Island. Local authorities also, reportedly, prevented representatives of UNHCR from meeting the Sri Lankans.

Not only were the local authorities’ actions in contravention of Vice President Jusuf Kalla’s demand to let the Sri Lankans find temporary safety and shelter in Aceh, letting them continue their precarious journey has gravely marred Indonesia’s image as the region’s leader on refugee issues. The reasoning was also flawed from a legal perspective.

First, by not letting the refugees descend from the boat, find safety and seek asylum, the government risked contradicting its own laws.

Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution recognizes everyone’s right to seek asylum. This recognition is reiterated in Article 28 in the 1999 law on human rights, which stipulates that everyone has a right to seek asylum from other countries. Articles 25 and 26 of the 1999 Foreign Relations Law stipulate that the decision to give asylum rests upon the president in consideration of international law and practices. Thus, Indonesia, through its own legislation, has imposed on itself an obligation to provide asylum to those in need, even though it is not party to the UN Refugee Convention.

Second, the relevant international law, especially the non-refoulement principle, provides that Indonesia must not let the Sri Lankans continue their journey to Australia. The non-refoulement principle essentially means countries should not subject a person to a situation where his or her life is at risk.

This principle has long been accepted as a customary rule of international law and is binding upon all countries with no exception. Through the years, this principle has been included in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which Indonesia is a party to.

Countless reports have recorded the death of too many boat people, including in 2013, when dozens drowned off the coast of Cianjur, West Java.

Australia imposes draconian policies on refugees and asylum-seekers by indefinitely detaining them in Nauru and Manus. The UN Human Rights Committee has found Australia in breach of its obligations by subjecting asylum-seekers and refugees to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. As such, if Indonesia turns away the Sri Lankans, they would face the prospect of being held on these islands, as well as being exposed to the dangers at sea. Therefore, Indonesia would have breached the non-refoulement principle.

Indonesia and Australia were regarded as the leaders in the region after the two countries jointly launched a regional framework to deal with irregular migration in 2002, known as the Bali Process. Nevertheless, Australia has lost its status as a leader in the region following its latest policy on refugees and asylum seekers.

And, if not for the intervention of the UNHCR, Indonesia might have also lost its hard-earned leadership on this issue.
______________________________

The writer is currently pursuing a post-graduate degree in human rights law at the Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Australia.