US calls for regional response to SE Asia migrant crisis

[webfact]

US calls for regional response to SE Asia migrant crisis

AFP

WASHINGTON: -- The United States on Wednesday voiced fears for the lives of the hundreds of migrants abandoned by traffickers at land and sea, calling on Southeast Asian nations to co-operate to address the crisis.

Waves of Bangladeshis and Myanmar Rohingyas have fled poverty and persecution in rickety boats across the Bay of Bengal at the hands of people traffickers running a thriving and lucrative regional smuggling network.

In the last fortnight thousands of desperate migrants have been abandoned by smugglers, some in remote jungle camps and others aboard boats, following a recent crackdown against the trade by Thailand.

Most migrants were making the journey "because of the dire humanitarian and economic situations they face at home and/or out of fear of ethnic and religious violence," a spokeswoman at the US Embassy told AFP.

"This is a regional challenge that needs to be addressed regionally, through a coordinated international effort and in accordance with international conventions and maritime law," she added.

Thailand has called for a regional summit later this month to address the crisis, but many observers fear any response could come too late for those currently stranded at sea.

So far South East Asian nations have shown little appetite to provide sanctuary for migrants abandoned on boats or launch a co-ordinated search and rescue effort to locate them.

On Wednesday Malaysia joined Indonesia in vowing to turn back any vessels that approached their shores unless lives were in imminent danger.

The Indonesian navy has already turned away at least one vessel packed with hundreds of abandoned migrants.

Thailand has yet to declare what its policy is towards stranded vessels, although in the past it has 'helped on' boats towards their intended destination, which is often Malaysia.

The International Organization for Migration has called for search-and-rescue operations to find stricken migrant boats.

Thousands of Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic group denied citizenship by Buddhist-majority Myanmar, flee annually to escape discrimination and sectarian violence that has targeted them in recent years.

More recently they have been joined by growing numbers of Bangladeshis, some of whom say they were kidnapped by people smugglers. Others are looking for jobs in wealthier regional nations.


-- (c) Copyright AFP 2015-05-13

[Credo]

SE Asia has and will continue to respond. The responses, however, are not very nice.

[zydeco]

Most migrants were making the journey "because of the dire humanitarian and economic situations they face at home and/or out of fear of ethnic and religious violence," a spokeswoman at the US Embassy told AFP.

And bringing hundreds, which will then turn into thousands and tens of thousands, will further impoverish people at the bottom of society in other SE Asian countries. It will also introduce and cause ethnic and religious violence where little or none now exists. Is it the avowed policy of the UN and the dogooders at the State Department to turn every country they can into another Detroit? The US has real problems with Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, and it needs to focus on them and leave other peoples to govern themselves and their societies (including their immigration policies) in a way they deem best.

Edited May 13, 2015 by zydeco

[Scott]

Somehow making an assumption that the situation with the Rohingyas is not a 'real' problem is a dire mistake. This situation has been going on for a long time. It will not get better until there is some focus on the problem and some effort to find solutions.

The people leaving Myanmar are not even officially considered citizens, thus Myanmar is not obligated to take them back -- at least according to Myanmar. Bangladesh does not consider them to be citizens either. In Bangladesh many live in refugee camps.

They are stateless people. They are not allowed to own land or property, have identify papers or travel documents. Their movement and travel even within Myanmar is severely limited. They have been finding mass graves in Thailand where they have been held as prisoners until their family can pay for their release. If they can't, then they are killed. If they do pay, then the person is allowed to continue on their perilous journey.

I think it is a sad state of affairs when the conditions and rights of people to exist are considered to not be a 'real' problem, but politics is.

[oneday]

I just ranted the other day about France butting into the US/Cuba thawing relations just to look good to Cuba, especially when the embargo will almost certainly be lifted without France's little rant. Now I have to go against my country here and tell them to shut up and butt out.

All the US or EU have to do is keep Thailand on the bottom tier of the trafficking list if they feel Thailand is not meeting their standards and for the EU to issue their yellow card if they feel Thailand is failing to fix their fishing industry. After this they need to just sit back and see what happens. If nothing happens then follow through with the bad listing and banning fish products. There is nothing more to be gained by putting out news items like this.

[Scott]

The situation of people being in slave conditions on fishing boats and the migrant crisis are connected, but they are not one and the same. Not all of the people on the fishing boats are illegal migrants.

Many of the people who are leaving Myanmar, and to a lesser extent Bangladesh, are headed for places such as Malaysia and Indonesia and perhaps Australia.

In the past there has been documented evidence of boats being disabled and towed back out to sea for what would be an almost certain death. During the Vietnamese refugee crisis about 40% of those that left Vietnam for Thailand died enroute, with most being killed by pirates after being robbed. These people are being afforded even less protection than the Vietnamese and are in a much more dangerous situation.

These people are provided with no protection by any government whatsoever.

[Expat1]

Good for them. Why should they turn their countries into a dumping ground for refugees? If the Americans and European press has convinced their respective foolish nations to allow that and those nations agree then that is up to them. One notices that the UK, Denmark, et al have recently refused anymore such intake. Send them home. If you want to help fine. In the case for Rohingya and Myanmar go there and talk, threaten or act but expecting the surrounding Asian countries to blindly take them is just plain wrong.

[Scott]

I don't know that anyone is expecting any country to take them in. Countries have the right to refuse people resettling within in their borders. That is a given. The point is that they are basically leaving stateless people to die at sea.

The problem is not one that should be faced by any one country. It does require the UN to get involved in helping to sort the situation out, including the issue of citizenship.

This is not a group of people that is really wanted by anyone, but they still need the basic protections of international law.

[Pakaty]

*Deleted post edited out*

Yes, I think these people should be rescued. Not left at sea to die. That would be callous indeed. Worry about what to do with them later. As a boater the idea of ignoring people at sea in distress is abhorring. This is a time sensitive issue. In days or weeks most of those people could or most likely would be dead.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Scott

[arjunadawn]

I have yet to see where the UN has created more good than harm on earth; all things considered, I think they represent the very dark tendencies of Man couched in "for the children" like pledges.. I know for a fact the various pressures the UN applies, or states are encouraged to agree to, have an entire continent of peoples from all over the world quietly changing the demographics of the US through resettlement programs in the millions- for which the American people have no clue- i am not referring to the Obama events.

I have little use for the UN and its ancillary money lenders to strong arm states to behave in their variously schemed new world plots. I recognize there is a problem but if you look closely the states refusing return or entry of waves of people are on the leading edge of knowing for sure it will harm them- some are visionary in this regard. The states that pie in the sky wishful think that brotherly love and fraternity can share their nations fruits will only delay inheriting what the refusal states know will surely come- disaster. The fact remains, IMO, the early battles for the world's dwindling resources will initially look just like this. Under varying delusions some will open their arms and only accelerate the invariable confrontations. Maybe an honorable road is to do what is right irrespective of whether harm may be done, now or later. But I think a nation's first responsibility is to its own. It is not incumbent upon any people to share enlightened altruism.

zydeco, on 13 May 2015 - 20:12, said:

And bringing hundreds, which will then turn into thousands and tens of thousands, will further impoverish people at the bottom of society in other SE Asian countries. It will also introduce and cause ethnic and religious violence where little or none now exists. Is it the avowed policy of the UN and the dogooders at the State Department to turn every country they can into another Detroit? The US has real problems with Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, and it needs to focus on them and leave other peoples to govern themselves and their societies (including their immigration policies) in a way they deem best.

x2

Note: Inviting the UN to fix the problem or suggest it should is to achieve a single end only- they will force other peoples to take them irrespective of their wishes through incentive or cohercion; the UN has singlemindly pursued the redistribution of peoples for decades. To ignore this is foolhardy.

[Scott]

As annoying and expensive as the UN is, the particular branch that deals with these situations, the UNHCR, has a slightly better track record than some of the other branches of the UN.

In a lot of instances of past refugee situations, there have been countries that were willing to accept them. In this case there really aren't. This isn't about pie-in-the-sky. It is about the basic right of people to live.

Virtually none of the countries where these people are headed are, or in the past, have been resettlement countries. They have never been welcoming of refugees. If they do land, they are put in detention facilities until there is a solution to their situation and then they are sent packing.

I am wondering who or what organization would be in a position to deal with this problem, if not the UN?

[Publicus]

As a practical matter, this hasn't anything to do with so called do-gooders or with do-gooded pie in the sky stuff. That's ideological and dogmatic tripe that necessarily creates new problems.

There are issues in this and the issues are real.

Lives are presently at risk. The people are stateless people due to policies of certain states that base their flawed decisions on religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, skin color and the like. These are real everyday problems that are exacerbated in this region of the world but not exclusively here.

The UN does have a role in these matters but the UN is not included in the OP. The OP is about what the United States said, does, advocates in respect of refugees and human rights. A rant against the UN and refugees is OTT in respect of the thread and topic.

[otherstuff1957]

I rather suspect that 'detention centers' in Thailand would be extremely porous. The Thai authorities are probably assuming that most of the refugees that enter the country will end up staying here.

As soon as a detention center is opened here, fishing boat and factory owners will be giving the guards a backhander and rolling in the front gates with buses to take away their new, cheap employees/slaves.

[Scott]

The majority of my work was done in other regions, but I did work for a time in the Thai refugee camps for Vietnamese and for Cambodians. Like many things here, they were porous, but they were only porous for those who wanted to escape to another country.

The camps were policed by the Thai military but largely funded by the UN and other Western countries. Some countries had vested interests in particular groups and thus gave money for the care and maintenance of those groups. They were not allowed to work in Thailand, that is for sure.

Thailand is not a signatory to the covenants on refugees so officially, they are generally listed as people of concern by the UN. I don't know the status of Rohingyas when they are picked up. What I have read is that they are generally put in jail.