On Monday 16 October 2017 the Council adopted the EU Annual Report on Human Rights And Democracy in the World in 2016.

2016 was a challenging year for human rights and democracy, with a shrinking space for civil society and complex humanitarian and political crises emerging. In this context, the European Union showed leadership and remained strongly committed to promote and protect human rights and democracy across the world.

This report gives a broad picture of the EU's human rights efforts towards third countries in 2016, and encompasses two parts: The first part is thematic, and pays particular attention to the human rights approach to conflicts and crises, main human rights challenges and human rights throughout EU external policies. The second part is geographical and covers EU actions in third countries, thus mapping in detail the human rights situation across the globe.

As of August 2017:

• 30 out of 37 countries in the UNFPA Asia-Pacific region completed at least one violence against women (VAW) prevalence survey

• 4 countries have completed more than one national VAW prevalence survey with comparable methods

• 26 countries have national statistics on intimate partner violence

• 22 of these have data on all three forms of violence in the last 12 months for SDG indicator 5.2.1

• 17 countries have national statistics on sexual violence by non-partners

• 8 of these have data on sexual violence in the last 12 months for SDG indicator 5.2.2

Key findings for Asia-Pacific

By country, the proportion of women who have reported experience of physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime ranges from 15 percent in Japan and Lao PDR, to 68 percent in Kiribati and Papua New Guinea.

The proportion of women who have reported experience of physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner in the past 12 months ranges from 4 percent in Japan to 46 percent in Afghanistan and Timor-Leste.

In most countries of the region, women are much more likely to have experienced intimate partner violence than to have experienced physical or sexual violence by someone other than a partner.

Samoa and Tonga differ from other countries in that women are more likely to have experienced physical violence by perpetrators other than partners, such as by family members or teachers.

kNOwVAWdata is a UNFPA initiative to support and strengthen sustainable regional and national capacity to measure VAW. Over three-and-a-half years, from mid-2016 through the end of 2019, with support from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the kNOwVAWdata initiative will build on work already being supported by UNFPA to conduct VAW surveys and analysis in in theAsia-Pacific region. The initiative will also ensure sustainability, including by strengthening capacities of national institutions to collect and analyze data, in particular by using internationally recognized, best practice survey methodologies

This factsheet provides a summary of the activities that the ICRC carries out for vulnerable migrants and their families in Asia. It explains our approach and describes what we, together with National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, do to help protect and assist migrants along migration routes in Asia.

In Asia, our migration activities are focused on using our Family Links network to restore contact between migrants and their families, helping clarify the fate and whereabouts of missing migrants and supporting their families, and providing humanitarian forensic support. They also include delivering basic aid and services to migrants along the route, working in immigration detention, and engaging with the authorities to ensure that they fulfil their legal obligations so as to protect the lives, preserve the dignity and alleviate the suffering of vulnerable migrants.

Majority of refugees to be resettled in the new year are from Pakistan and Afghanistan

Ben Doherty

Nearly 200 refugees from Australia’s offshore detention islands of Nauru and Manus will be resettled in the United States in the new year.

Read more on The Guardian

Drought, earthquakes, floods, typhoons, volcanoes, and civil unrest, compounded by limited government response capacity in some countries, present significant challenges to vulnerable populations in the East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) region. Between FY 2008 and FY 2017, USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA) and USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (USAID/FFP) provided humanitarian assistance in response to a range of natural and complex emergencies in the region. Examples include cyclones and typhoons in Burma, the Pacific Islands, and the Philippines; earthquakes in China, Indonesia, and Japan; floods in Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam; drought in the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Vietnam; volcanic eruptions in Indonesia and the Philippines; winter emergencies in Mongolia; and conflict in Burma, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste.

USAID provided nearly $338 million to respond to disasters in the EAP region between FY 2008 and FY 2017. USAID/OFDA assistance included more than $189 million for programs in agriculture and food security; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive hazards; economic recovery and market systems; health; humanitarian coordination and information management; logistics support and relief commodities; nutrition; protection; search and rescue; risk management policy and practice; shelter and settlements; and water, sanitation, and hygiene.

USAID/FFP support included more than $148 million for food assistance in the form of U.S.-purchased food, locally and regionally purchased food, cash transfers, food vouchers, and related activities.
In the last decade, USAID responded to 108 disasters in EAP. USAID frequently deployed humanitarian teams to the region, including six Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DARTs). USAID deployed DARTs to Burma after Cyclone Nargis in FY 2008; to Indonesia following an earthquake in FY 2010; to New Zealand following an earthquake in FY 2011; to Japan in response to an earthquake and resulting tsunami and nuclear emergency in FY 2011; to the Marshall Islands in FY 2013 due to a drought; and to the Philippines in FY 2014 for Typhoon Haiyan. USAID also activated multiple Washington, D.C.-based Response Management Teams to support coordination and response efforts.

More refugees, including three babies, are the latest to leave Nauru to go to the United States for resettlement.

Read more on Radio New Zealand.

More refugees, including three babies, are the latest to leave Nauru to go to the United States for resettlement.

Read more on Radio New Zealand.

Seven single men have made up the sixth group of refugees to leave Nauru for resettlement in the United States.

Read more on Radio New Zealand International

A senior UN refugee agency official warned on Wednesday about the “shocking” effects of long-term detention on Australia-bound asylum-seekers who are being held on remote Pacific islands.

Indrika Ratwatte said the situation in Nauru, as well and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, was as bad as he had seen in his 25-year career.

Both locations have been used to house more than 3,000 men, women and children from Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, since Australia implemented its offshore processing policy in 2013.

Speaking to journalists in Geneva after returning from Nauru last week, Mr. Ratwatte, who heads the Asia and Pacific bureau of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), described the “shocking” psychological and the mental toll on refugees and asylum seekers.

Children have been particularly affected, he said:

“I have seen a little girl for example who was 12 years old in a catatonic state who has not stepped out of her room in a month […] clinical psychiatrists and professionals have determined that around 80 per cent of the asylum-seekers and refugees in Nauru and Manus as well are suffering from post-traumatic stress and depression. This is per capita one of the highest mental health problems levels that have been noted.”

Despite the clear need to address the problem, the lack of psychiatric help and healthcare “has increased the sense of hopelessness and despair,” Mr. Ratwatte said.

“The point here is also that Australia has had a long tradition of supporting refugee and humanitarian programmes globally, but on this one, the offshore processing policy has had an extremely detrimental impact on refugees and asylum-seekers.”

He urged Australia to continue to support the authorities on Nauru once it hands over responsibility to the island for medical and psychiatric services.

There are currently around 2,000 detainees on the islands.

Around 40 children born in Nauru have seen “nothing but detention-like conditions,” Mr. Ratwatte said, and another 50 youngsters have spent more than half their lives there.

Under a deal agreed between Australia and the United States, some 1,000 detainees from Nauru will be repatriated to the US Around 180 have already left the island.

Welcoming the agreement, the UNHCR official said that this would still leave the same number of people on Nauru, and he urged the Australian Government to consider an offer from New Zealand to rehouse them.

“It is a very genuine offer and New Zealand has an excellent programme for refugee settlement,” Mr. Ratwatte said.

This is a transcript of the press briefing by Indrika Ratwatte, UNHCR Director of the Bureau for Asia and the Pacific – to whom quoted text may be attributed – at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on 04 April 2018.

Indrika Ratwatte: Thank you and good morning. I undertook a mission to Nauru and UNHCR obviously has regular visits to Nauru and PNG [Papua New Guinea] in the context of the offshore processing policy of Australia which has, as we speak, around 1,100 individuals, asylum-seekers and refugees in Nauru and about another 800 in PNG. And, the purpose of my mission was to also look at the situation on the ground and coordinate also with the Australian authorities and the Nauru authorities on the conditions of the asylum-seekers and refugees and what we consider the minimum efforts that need to be taken to make the life of these people more conducive.

I’ve been working for 25 years in the UN and with refugees and I must say when I went to Nauru I was shocked by the situation of, particularly, the children in Nauru.

The long term detention – five years plus – in Nauru has taken an immense toll on the people and I think three things struck me as really telling of the condition.

One was the mental health situation. Over 80 per cent of the people have been diagnosed by clinical psychiatrists and others as suffering from PTSD and trauma and depression, in both PNG and Nauru. I think the lack of adequate healthcare and psychiatric care really has impacted people. The sense of hopelessness and despair was extremely tangible amongst the group of people here.

The second point, which was also very telling here was the family separation. As you may know, given the cut-off point of when people were brought to Nauru and the others allowed to go to Australia to be settled, some families have been separated. Secondly, there were medical cases, for example, where you would see the mother and child who had gone for medical treatment to Australia, and the father and the daughter are in Nauru, and they are unable to join and they are separated. This has caused also a lot of trauma on the children. One case I remember seeing this little child, 12 years old, tried to speak to her. She was in bed, catatonic, not gotten out of that bed for a week, not gotten out of that room for over a month and the father was desperate as to what to do with this child and this is symptomatic of some of the mental health issues that was there.

The next issue, I think, which needs addressing immediately as well is the withdrawal or the change or the transfer or the transition of services from Manus and in Nauru, where certain services are being provided, particularly medical and psychiatric care, is now going to be given over to the Nauru authorities and here we have expressed a deep concern that there should be adequate capacity, training and ability for the Nauru government to take over these services if they are being given those services and that Australia should commit to continue supporting these efforts. If not, the impact on the asylum-seekers and refugees are going to be quite serious.

Lastly, I think, the whole issue of solutions for these people. We are very encouraged that the bilateral agreement between the US government and Australia has enabled, or will enable, about 1,200 of these asylum-seekers and refugees to find solutions in the US. However, there is still approximately another 1,000 individuals who are in need of solutions. Here we have urged the Australian government to consider taking up the government of … New Zealand’s offer of potential resettlement places and we really urge Australia to consider that option and pursue other options that individuals are not in these detention-like conditions for a further length of time because the evidence of that period in Nauru and Manus on the people, their psychiatric and physical and mental wellbeing is evident and it is quite shocking.

The point here is also that Australia has had a long tradition of supporting refugee programs and humanitarian programs globally but, on this one, the offshore processing policy has had an extremely detrimental impact on refugees and asylum-seekers. And for those who say that these may be people who are not in need of international protection, the statistics indicate 80 per cent plus have been recognised as refugees. So that, in and of itself, shows that these are indeed people in need of protection. This also has been our point of advocacy with the Australian government, that these are people in need of protection, they should be availed with protection and solutions, and offshore processing is not the way forward to deal with providing protection and solutions for the people in need.

These are some of the impressions I had and, I must say, looking at the children and the parents and their despair and hopelessness was striking in these conditions. I’ll leave it at that as initial reflections and I’m happy to take some questions.

The floor was then open for questions.

Question: You mentioned the transfer of services but I’m actually interested in another element of the transfer which is that apparently Nauru has severed its ties with the Australia court of appeals so that migrants – asylum-seekers – no longer have the right to appeal to the Australian judicial system to have their case reviewed and there are obviously some activists who are saying that’s going to leave people in an even more legal limbo. Nauru has sort of said they are going to set up some sort of interim local court of appeal to hear asylum cases but there’s no structure in place and no clarity on how that will play out. Do you have any comment on that?

Indrika Ratwatte: That’s correct. The Nauru government has now decided to set up its own appeal procedures, severing its links with Australia. While that is a sovereign decision of Nauru, we are very keen that there is no gap, one, in the ability of asylum-seekers to seek redress on appeal, that that has to be maintained and until such time Nauru has established a process where appeal can be effectively heard I think Australia should continue to have that facility open and the transition is seamless. The bottom line is that individuals, as you rightly said, have access to appeal procedures.

Question: Can you give us a small summary, what is happening, in terms of who has responsibility upon these people? Australia left but it was a processing centre that they set up. Do they have any responsibility or not at all? As well as…if you can do a breakdown of the numbers. You say 1,100 people but how many of them are children, women, nationalities?

Indrika Ratwatte: Thank you. The breakdown, initially, it was about 3,172 individuals who were transferred from Australia to PNG and Nauru, and today we have about 1,100 in Nauru and 800 in PNG. For example, in Nauru, 40 children were born in Nauru. They have seen nothing but detention-like conditions and another fifty have spent half their life in Nauru. They have seen nothing but half their life in Nauru and in detention. Around 400 cases have been also transferred to Australia for medical and other reasons, and so far around 169, almost 170 individuals have departed to the US under the bilateral arrangement between Australia and the US. In Manus, the caseload is primarily single males, while that is the 800 and in Nauru the 1100 are families and children. So the families are in Nauru and the single males are in Papua New Guinea. On the transfer of services, the real concern is that adequate services are provided with trained, qualified individuals, particularly in mental health, and, as the statistics indicate, this is a serious issue and Nauru should be supported and Australia should live up to its responsibilities vis-à-vis these refugees and asylum-seekers.

Question: I want to understand the legal point. Is Australia bound to do, under International Law? Are they obliged to take care of them – what they do is another story – but should they take care of these people?

Indrika Ratwatte: Under International Law, as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the international law obligations for Australia obliges them to have asylum-seekers access their territory and go through status determination procedures. So the offshore processing policy is, indeed, an abrogation of their International Law responsibilities.

Question: Do you have a sense of Australia’s motivations here? Is it cost cutting? They no longer want to bother funding the services in Nauru. What’s going on actually, in your view? And, additionally, I don’t quite understand why Australia would show reluctance toward New Zealand’s offer. New Zealand is offering some resettlement places, why not just say ‘here you go’?

Indrika Ratwatte: I mean two elements, I think, are many individuals initially when there were the boat arrivals – large numbers coming – wanted to look at how to manage this. There was one perception that this might be people abusing asylum systems and there is international, transnational crime, trafficking and smuggling. The point is people are on the move globally, yes, it is a challenge for member states to look at how to manage this process, yes, but this is not the way to do it. You have a process where there is due process for individuals seeking protection who go through the system of status determination and then are either recognised as refugees through that due process or not, and that has been our point to Australia. Saying, is it a challenge? Yes. Should it be managed? Yes. But not in this manner. It can be managed differently. And Australia has had a long tradition of refugee programs and humanitarian programs - a country of migrants and refugees, very hospitable. Many, many refugees have been resettled in Australia. And Australia continues to be a generous supporter of the humanitarian and refugee programs and, on this one, the precedent they are setting also is not the one which should be set by a country which is a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

Question: So if I understand what you’re saying, Australia has decided to no longer provide these essential services in Nauru because they believe the people there are not legitimate asylum-seekers, that they’re people – they’re criminals or people taking advantage of the asylum process?

Indrika Ratwatte: No, Australia has now come up with a policy that they support Nauru financially to provide these services and our point is that it should be adequate, it should be skilled and it should give the level of services needed for individuals.

Question: The New Zealand question, why is Australia not just saying ‘here, this is a good solution’?

Indrika Ratwatte: This is not a question that was answered and we keep asking the question from Australia saying ‘why not, why not’, because it is a very genuine offer and New Zealand has excellent program of resettlement for refugees as well, globally.

Question: Can you give a breakdown of the nationalities of the people on Nauru right now?

Indrika Ratwatte: I don’t have the exact numbers but we have numbers of Afghans, Iranians, some Rohingya refugees, Syrian and also I believe some Sri Lankans and … Myanmar, some other nationalities, some other ethnicities from Myanmar as well, indeed.

Question: When you said 80 per cent are effectively refugees, this … was done by you, UNHCR?

Indrika Ratwatte: No, the status determination is done by Nauru and Australian authorities in their status determination procedures. This is also the point we’ve made that, for those who say these are not individuals in need of protection, 80 per cent have been recognised under due process as having need of international protection – that they’re refugees.

Question: If you have people on this island who have refugee status, you have a country, New Zealand, that has offered to resettle them in accordance with all procedures in the Refugee Convention and Australia is saying actually I’m not sure we want to allow that. I think I’m missing a piece.

Indrika Ratwatte: Your surprise is as good as mine and if I were to venture a speculation I would think that there are some who think that if they go to New Zealand they’ll come back to Australia. Because of family links, or whatever reasons, I think this is one perception I’m assuming, but that’s really not the case because there have been thousands of refugees resettled in New Zealand and its excellent resettlement program.

At this point there were no further questions on Nauru and Australia

Indrika Ratwatte: Just to update you, if I may, on a separate point of interest to you, on Myanmar and Bangladesh, to give you the latest developments here.

As you know, UNHCR was in discussions with the Bangladeshi government on a Memorandum of Understanding on voluntary repatriation, because UNHCR was very keen to have the international principles stated and stipulated in any future potential return – if and when it happens. These negotiations [with Bangladesh] are almost concluded and, hopefully in the near future, we will be signing this agreement with Bangladesh that stipulates the conditions and the standards and the international norms that have to be followed should any voluntary repatriation take place.

Secondly, on the Myanmar side, the government of Myanmar, the UNDP and UNHCR are in discussion on tripartite agreement that will look at access to Rakhine state, to see the conditions on the ground and look at possibilities of having programmes that create conditions within these areas for possible returns and repatriation in the future.

So, two different processes are going on. But, in Myanmar, it’s between UNDP, UNHCR and the government of Myanmar. As you know, we have clearly said access is imperative for the UN and us in the UN family to have access to northern Rakhine to see the situation on the ground.

Question: Would it be fair to say that UNHCR could not advocate for the return of these Rohingyas without some kind of monitoring mechanism on the ground in Rakhine state? If hundreds of thousands of people start going back and the military comes in again, it’s not just going to be a human tragedy, it’s going be a disaster for the international community ‘cause this cycle is now repeating. So would you not like to see some kind of presence on the ground to watch people come home, to observe and to monitor for a period of time?

Indrika Ratwatte: Absolutely. As the High Commissioner in his briefing in the Security Council said – conditions for voluntary repatriation to Myanmar do not exist at this point in time. Two, any repatriation should be voluntary, refugees should be well informed and it should be conducted in safety and dignity. And, as you rightly say, for that to happen it is imperative that we have a presence and meaningful access in northern Rakhine state.

Question: Three months ago when the agreement between Bangladesh and Myanmar government was announced and there was a mention of UNHCR, but then UNHCR said we were not involved in this process. Now you are having an agreement just with Bangladesh. What is the relation with the framework the two countries agreed upon and then you having another agreement just with Bangladesh?

Indrika Ratwatte: The two governments had a bilateral agreement and UNHCR was not involved in that. We were not invited to be part of that. Traditionally what happens it’s always a tripartite [agreement] – the country of asylum, the country of origin and UNHCR. We did tell both governments that even in their bilateral certain clear principals have to be articulated about voluntary nature [of returns], etc. – which in their bilateral agreement is included, which is good. We were not part of that agreement and particularly since we were not, we want to enshrine the principles of voluntary returns, the conditions needed for voluntary returns and because the host country is hosting the refugees we thought it is important to reiterate that with Bangladesh and have that agreement. Ideally, it should have been a tripartite which has the same conditionality.

Question: Why do not you try to have a separate agreement with Myanmar?

Indrika Ratwatte: Well, this is a Myanmar government that came forward because we have been insisting as UNHCR, as the UN family, to have access to northern Rakhine state and they said OK, now we will consider a tripartite agreement with UNDP and UNHCR and that is why we are now in negotiations. To put down the conditions, again, linked to meaningful, unfettered access in northern Rakhine.

Question: Is this both to check what is happening in northern Rakhine and on top of that to set up the conditions to eventually accept some returnees?

Indrika Ratwatte: Primarily, this is to have unfettered access, exactly, and secondly, to be enabled to have programmes that impact the communities and create the conditions for returns, for sustainable returns and reintegration. That again is, if people eventually decide to come. But access is the main fundamental point here, meaningful and unfettered access to Rakhine state which, as you rightly said, right now does not exist.

Question: When you’re negotiating are the Myanmar security forces in the room? Or you negotiate strictly with the civilian government?

Indrika Ratwatte: No. [We negotiate with] civilian government.

END

Another 16 refugees, including three children left Nauru yesterday to be resettled in the United States.

Read more on Radio New Zealand International.

Threats, intimidation, arrest, prosecution, denial of permits, rejection of interview requests, seizure of equipment and deportation – such are the methods used by governments to obstruct media coverage of refugees. It is the 21st century’s biggest humanitarian crisis, which Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is examining for World Refugee Day, on the 20th of June 2018.

La Repubblica journalist Alessandro Puglia never imagined the outcome of the investigative report he did on a migrant reception centre in Catania, Sicily. When he submitted his story, which included interviews with migrants describing how they were “interviews with migrants describing how they were “treated like animals,”,” he thought it would it would lead to an investigation into the centre.

Although, the Italian judicial authorities did get involved, but Puglia became their target, not the centre. The reporter who had exposed how the centre was flouting the most basic right of the migrants, is being prosecuted for defamation and has been insulted and threatened on social networks. The trial is scheduled for October. Puglia says the worst and most “unacceptable” aspect of this episode, has been encountering “a legal form of intimidation” designed to “discourage journalists from doing their work.”

In the Alpes-Maritimes region of southeastern France that borders Italy, reporters covering migration issues have to deal with another “legal form of intimidation,” this one by the police. “It’s the only story in which I have encountered so much harassment,” said photographer Laurent Carré although, as a regional correspondent for various French dailies including Libération, he often works on stories involving the police.

Carré has lost count of the number of times he has had to show his press card and assert his “right to be able to photograph” police and refugees together on the public highway “to police officers who tell me the contrary.” In January 2017, he was even manhandled and thrown to the ground by gendarmes who had just arrived in force at the home of Cédric Herrou, a farmer who is being prosecuted for helping migrants. On one occasion, a gendarme who recognized Carré told him: “Monsieur, I advise you to stop covering these stories because you’re going to have problems.”

Arrested while reporting

US reporter Spencer Wolff faced such problems. He had spent the past several months filming a documentary for a documentary for The Guardian about residents in the Roya valley near the French and Italian border who help migrants, when he was arrested in June 2017 and spent 24 hours and 55 minutes in police custody on a charge of assisting illegal migrants. The gendarmes who arrested him were ones he had filmed a few weeks earlier while following some of the subjects of his documentary. “They knew full well that I was journalist but they interrogated me at length for information about Cédric Herrou,” he said.

Lisa Giachino, the editor of the monthly L’âge de Faire, spent ten hours in police custody after being arrested by the Frontier Police (PAF) as she accompanied six Eritrean minors in the Alpes-Maritimes region in January 2017. “The police didn’t dispute the fact that I was a journalist when they told me they were taking me into custody,” she wrote in an editorial. “Hundreds of soldiers, gendarmes, police officers and judicial officials have been deployed in Alpes-Maritimes to hunt for migrants and to harass those who help them and even those who just take an interest in them,” the editorial concluded.

Behind the official goal of breaking up migrant-smuggler networks, “there is clearly a desire to obstruct our reporting on the ground,” freelance journalist Raphaël Krafft said. Krafft has done many stories about migrants in the Mediterranean border town of Ventimiglia, on the refugee rescue boat Aquarius, in Alpine border passes and in the Briançon region, where he was arrested in December 2017 with Caroline Christinaz, a reporter for the Swiss daily Le Temps.

“But it is not just the police who prevent us from working,” Krafft added. “We are also blocked by municipal authorities and different state agencies that don’t respond to our requests.” In both France and Italy, he said, requests for interviews with officials directly involved in migrant issues or authorizing access to refugee camps are never successful. This is not new. As a participant in the “Open Access Now” campaign in 2012, RSF drew attention to the fact that reporters were being denied access to migrant detention centres almost everywhere in Europe.

“Our societies cannot dispense with media coverage of migration crises, which are now at the centre of the public debate in Europe and elsewhere,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said. “Covering this story cannot be regarded as a crime. So why detain journalists, seize their equipment and deny them access to refugee detention camps? Governments have a duty and responsibility to not obstruct journalism on security grounds and not promote a rosy view of an often tragic reality.”

Reporting that shows basic rights being flouted

Reporting on migrants “challenges the authorities about the legality of what they are doing,” Krafft said. “Criminal abandonment, failing to assist persons in danger, refusing to recognize the rights of minors... they are very often on the edge of the law.”

This is also what reporter Claire Billet and photographer Olivier Jobard have found. They crossed six borders clandestinely in 2013 in order to cover the journey of five migrants from Kabul to Paris. The boat in which they were travelling was intercepted off Greece. Its motor was removed and then it was pushed back into Turkish waters. “If we had been identified as journalists, we would never have been able to see how the Greek coastguards turn back refugees en masse, which is illegal.”

When Billet and Jobard were subsequently spotted at the border by Turkish officials, they were arrested, fined, expelled and banned from returning to Turkey for two years. Their expulsion was carried out in a reasonable fashion. Four years later, after a dramatic decline in media freedom in Turkey in the wake of the July 2016 coup attempt, Italian journalist Gabriele Del Grande ended up going on hunger strike in order to get out of the detention centre in which he had been held for two weeks after being arrested while covering refugees at Turkey’s border with Syria.

Restricting coverage of a shameful and inhumane reality

Outside Europe, the situation is even worse. At Agadez, in Niger, where the routes of migrants from Guinea, Nigeria, Mali and Sudan intersect, “first-hand reporting is impossible.” Even those with a press card are denied entry to the centre run by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), although “we know that there are thousands of migrants living there in deplorable conditions, with barely enough to eat,” Radio Kaoucen manager Ousmane Oumarou said.

In Libya, journalists are terrified nowadays when they go to migrant detention centres, which have been controlled by Libya’s militias since 2014. After a bureaucratic run-around for the necessary permits, they arrive at a centre where “the reality of the conditions inflicted on the migrants is clearly being disguised” and where they have to “film staged scenes at the militiamen’s behest,” RSF was told by a Libyan reporter, who requested anonymity for safety reasons.

The reporters comply “out of fear of reprisals.” They film or stop filming on orders. In June 2015, the same reporter was “forced to cut short an interview with a migrant who was crying while describing inhuman detention conditions.” Last year, he watched helplessly as guards used force to prevent a pregnant woman from coming to talk to him.

The Pacific gulag’s information “black holes”

Thousands of people who have been detained while seeking an international refuge now languish far from cameras and microphones in government-run news and information “black holes.” After imposing offshore asylum processing and moving its detention centres to Pacific islands, Australia has managed to isolate these “Pacific gulags” from the media.

After letting Australia use a prison as a migrant detention centre, the small and remote Pacific island state of Nauru prevented media access by establishing a unique visa policy. The charge for a visa application runs as a high as 8,000 euros and is not refundable even when the visa is denied, which is usually the case. And to further limit media attention the Nauruan government found another radical solution – blocking access to Facebook for three years.

Journalists are supposed to be banned from Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, where Australia has its other main migrant detention centre. But one of the asylum seekers held there happens to be the Iranian Kurdish journalist Behrouz Boochani, who has been taking advantage of the limited and costly Internet access available to detainees to cover the reality and the consequences of Australia’s immigration policy since 2014. It’s from inside the centre, using Twitter, Facebook and the British press that this journalist has been describing the “slow agony” of the often “terrified” refugees who are the victims of this “sadistic prison system.”

Risky reporting from the inside

It can be dangerous for refugee journalists to cover the abusive treatment of their fellow refugees in the detention centres or camps into which they are crammed. Abdel Hafez al Houlani, a Syrian journalist from Homs who has been living in the refugee camp in Arsal, in eastern Lebanon, since 2015, was held and mistreated for six days after being arrested on 24 May of this year. When he acknowledged under interrogation that he ran the press office of the Union of Syrians for the Defence of Prisoners and was the Zaman Al Wasil news website’s correspondent, and that he covered “anything to do with the Syrian refugees in the Arsal camp, including Lebanese army raids and the frequent arrests,” the insults by his interrogators redoubled. Since his release, he has been summoned for further questioning twice, he thinks he is being followed, and he fears for his life.

Minzayar Oo and Hkun Lat, two Burmese journalists who were covering the flight of several hundred thousand Rohingya refugees from Myanmar into neighbouring Bangladesh, feared the worst when the Bangladeshi authorities arrested them in September 2017 on suspicion of spreading “false information” and spying for Myanmar. The Bangladeshi suspicions were fuelled by the fact that Myanmar was not supposed to be letting its journalists cross the border and, even more so, by the fact that it did not want them writing about the atrocities that were driving the Rohingya exodus.

By intimidating journalists who cover the refugee story, some governments are not only seeking to conceal their violations of international humanitarian law but also to ensure that their questionable political decisions are ignored or can even be denied outright.

FOREWORD

In a complex and fast-changing world, we remain focused and resolute in pursuit of our goal – to provide the most appropriate, effective medicine in the harshest of environments. As well as responding to vital needs, our aid is born of a desire to show solidarity with people who are suffering, whether as a result of conflict, neglect or disease.

As a medical humanitarian association, our strength lies in our employees and volunteers, be they frontline workers or back-office staff, and all the other people who support our work, whether financially, technically, politically or otherwise. This shared commitment to those stripped of their basic rights is what binds us together.

Our strength is also grounded in mutual respect and transparency. We welcome the recent focus on abuse of power within society at large and the aid sector specifically. With tens of thousands of staff working in extreme conditions around the world, the need for each and every one of our patients and staff to feel safe to report and fight any form of abuse is something we take very seriously.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) employs people of around 150 different nationalities and this diversity is a source of strength. Combining an external eye with local knowledge improves the quality of our operations. It helps us get closer to the realities and needs of our patients and develop the best possible medical response. It also helps us to successfully negotiate access to the most vulnerable populations in some of the most difficult places. We must continually challenge ourselves and each other to ensure that the decisions we take are based on, and benefit from, the widest range of perspectives possible.

MSF teams around the world are constantly adjusting to the specific challenges of very different situations. As you will see from this report on our activities in 2017, we continue to tailor the care we provide to the diverse realities we work in: the realities of displacement, from the borders of Syria or Somalia to the deadly so-called migration routes of North Africa, the Mediterranean and Europe; the evolution of disease realities such as multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or epidemic outbreaks such as cholera and meningitis; and the conflict realities of the Middle East and Africa.

Despite the significant direct assistance our teams have been able to deliver, too many patients and communities – from Syria to Iraq, South Sudan and Nigeria, to name but a few – remain stuck in the epicentres of spiralling conflicts. The lack of any form of protection in such contexts all too often leaves us as powerless witnesses.

In such extreme realities, we continue to deploy what means we can. But we cannot do it alone. We rely on those who support our action. This generosity and compassion is what allows us to continue our lifesaving work.

Dr Joanne Liu
INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT

Jérôme Oberreit
SECRETARY GENERAL

Fourteen more refugees left Nauru on Sunday to be resettled in the US, according to refugee advocates.

Read more on Radio New Zealand International

Regional update – Asia and the Pacific Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme
Sixty-ninth session
1-5 October 2018

A. Situational context including new developments

As of the end of 2017, there were some 9.5 million persons of concern to UNHCR in the Asia and Pacific region, including 4.2 refugees, 2.7 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 2.2 million stateless persons. While only 20 of the 45 countries and territories in the region have acceded to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, the long-standing tradition of hospitality towards refugees remains strong, as demonstrated by Bangladesh over the last 13 months in welcoming 725,000 stateless Rohingya refugees who fled Myanmar following the violence that erupted in the northern Rakhine State in late August 2017.

A major operational focus for UNHCR in 2018 has remained the refugee emergency in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. UNHCR has supported the Government in providing protection and delivering lifesaving assistance to some 900,000 stateless Rohingya refugees, including an estimated 200,000 who fled Rakhine State in previous waves of displacement. In June 2018, the monsoon season in Bangladesh left refugees vulnerable to landslides, flooding and disease. The Bangladeshi authorities, UNHCR, IOM and other partners worked to mitigate the risks and responded with emergency interventions, including search and rescue operations, relocations and the distribution of shelter kits and additional aid. More than one year after the current crisis began, Rohingya refugees continue to flee to Bangladesh, although in smaller numbers than in 2017. Since January 2018, over 13,000 Rohingya refugees have crossed into Bangladesh. The situation remains grim, and there are growing concerns about the future of an entire generation of Rohingya children.

In April 2018, UNHCR and Bangladesh signed a memorandum of understanding, which establishes a framework for cooperation on the safe, voluntary and dignified return of Rohingya refugees, in line with international standards, once conditions in Myanmar are conducive.

In June 2018, UNHCR, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Government of Myanmar signed a tripartite memorandum of understanding which establishes a framework for cooperation aimed at creating the conditions conducive for the safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable repatriation of Rohingya refugees to their places of origin or of their choosing. Since the conditions are not yet conducive to voluntary return, the memorandum of understanding represents only a first, but necessary, step to support the Government’s efforts to this end.

In view of the enormous scale and diversity of the challenges facing the people of Rakhine State and the urgent need to find solutions, UNHCR is promoting the concept of “A Solidarity approach for the people of Rakhine State”. The approach plans to bring together a broad range of stakeholders in support of resilience, solutions and a decent life for the people of Rakhine State, wherever they may be.

Afghans remained the largest refugee population of concern to UNHCR in Asia and the Pacific. In total there were 2.2 million Afghan refugees worldwide in 2018, the majority of whom were hosted in the Islamic Republics of Iran and Pakistan. Nearly forty years since the start of the large-scale displacement of Afghans, the volatile security situation in Afghanistan continues to drive displacement in 2018, with over 175,800 persons estimated to be newly displaced within the country. It has also rendered humanitarian access increasingly difficult.

UNHCR continues to monitor the protection situation facing refugees who were transferred to Papua New Guinea and Nauru under Australia’s policy of “offshore processing.” Five years on, some 1,350 men, women and children still live in detention-like conditions, with many (including young children) suffering from acute mental illness. While UNHCR welcomes the ongoing relocation of refugees to the United States of America, it calls for urgent solutions to be secured for the hundreds who will remain, including those who were transferred to Australia for medical reasons and who are expected to return to Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

This monthly digest comprises threats and incidents of violence affecting protection of IDPs and refugees. It is prepared by Insecurity Insight from information available in open sources.

Security Incidents and Access Constraints

Africa

Central African Republic

04 September 2018 (Date of article): In Bria town, Haute-Kotto prefecture, unidentified armed men blocked the humanitarian corridors to internally displaced people (IDP) sites, including PK3 (largest IDP site) preventing the delivery of drinking water. Source: Le Réseau des Journalistes pour les Droits de l'Homme (RJDH)

05 September 2018 (Date of article): In Bria town, Haute-Kotto prefecture, militiamen from the Patriotic Front for the Renaissance in the Central African Republic (FPRC) raided all tents of the CEBI church IDP site, claiming that they were looking for anti-Balaka militants, before kidnapping an elderly man. Source: RJDH

06 September 2018: Near Bria town, Haute-Kotto region, clashes between Seleka and anti-Balaka militia forces led to at least 9 IDPs being abducted or killed. Source: ACLED and Centrafrique-Presse

Nigeria

04 September (Date of article): In Borno state, in an effort to portray the northeast parts of Nigeria as safer, Nigerian authorities have ordered 823,000 people internally displaced by Boko Haram and Islamic State to return to dangerous areas which humanitarian organisations are unable to reach. Source: Reuters

Sudan

12 September 2018: In North Darfur region, near to El Fasher city, a group of three armed herders raped two IDPs aged 15 and 17 who were working on a farm in the area. The perpetrators were chased away after three hours by other residents of the nearby Zanzam IDP camp. Source: ACLED

Uganda

02 September 2018: In Nyumazi town, Northern region, clashes broke out between two South Sudanese clans at the Nyumazi refugee camp leaving 12 injured. Source: ACLED

04 September 2018: In Yumbe district, South Sudanese refugees organised peaceful protests in response to a lack of food rations,

This monthly digest comprises threats and incidents of violence affecting the delivery of aid.
It is prepared by Insecurity Insight from information available in open sources.

Indonesia Earthquake and Tsunami Response

New safety, security and access information

01 October 2018: On Sulawesi island, the National Disaster Management Authority asked international NGOs to pull out and announced that it would only authorise certain selective forms of foreign aid. No reason was given for this decision. Sources: IRIN and The Guardian

Security Incidents and Access Constraints

Africa

Burkina Faso

09 October 2018: In Fada N’Gourma, Pama and Gayéri towns, Est region, criminal and terrorist activities forced NGOs to reduce their working hours and to refrain from in-field work, leading to some delays in the implementation of projects. Source: RFI Africa
31 October 2018: In Kilambo village, Bafuni region, Masisi territory, 10 IDPs, including teachers, were abducted by the Reformed Nduma Defence of the Congo militia. No further details specified.
Source: ACLED

Burundi

01 October 2018: Burundian authorities placed a three-month ban on almost all international NGOs operating in Burundi, including MSF and Catholic Relief Services, on the basis that some organisations have violated the 2017 ‘General Framework for Cooperation between the Republic of Burundi and Foreign NGOs’, an amendment for ethnicity quotas in the hiring of national staff. Only INGOs running hospitals and schools are exempt. Sources: Amnesty International,
Devex and VOA News
10 October 2018: In Muyinga city and province, police arrested three IRC employees, one Congolese and two Burundian, for violating the aforementioned ban on international NGOs. Source: Le Figaro

Cameroon

05 October 2018: In Tole region, Fako department, soldiers entered an IDP camp and began shooting, leaving three civilians dead. No further information specified. Source:
ACLED

Central African Republic

19 October 2018: In Bria town, Haute-Kotto province, anti-Balaka militiamen abducted four MINUSCA peacekeepers but released them two days later, on 21 October. Source: aBangui

31 October-01 November 2018: In Batangafo town, Ouham prefecture, armed men attacked and torched three IDP camps, destroying them completely and leaving around 27,000 people without a home. This incident prompted NGOs to suspend their activities at the sites. Source: RJDH

Chad

01 October 2018: In western Chad, a truck carrying UN provisions to Baga Sola, near Lake Chad, was attacked near Maou village by unidentified perpetrators. The driver and his assistant went missing and are presumed kidnapped, while the truck and its cargo were recovered. No further details specified. Source: AWSD

26 October 2018 (DoA): In the island areas of western Chad a series of militant attacks forced six aid organisations - including the WFP - to suspend their operations, leaving tens of thousands of people without food and health services for weeks. Source: Reuters

Democratic Republic of the Congo

02 October 2018: In Butembo city, north Kivu region, two or three local Red Cross workers (accounts vary) were attacked during the burial of Ebola victims, leaving them with serious injuries. No further details specified. Sources: IFRC, Media Congo, AWSD, Reuters and The Telegraph

09 October 2018: In Beni city, North Kivu province, a citywide attack by armed militias forced the IRC to suspend its programmes until 10 October, when the organisation resumed its activities only within the city limits of Beni. Source: Reuters

12 October 2018 (DoA): In Beni city, North Kivu province, an attack staged by armed militias forced two WHO personnel to remain indoors for two full days. Source: VOA News

15 October 2018: In areas hit by the Ebola outbreak, insecurity prompted the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention to pull back its personnel. Source: CNN

21 October 2018: In Beni city, North Kivu province, residents threw stones at vehicles belonging to unnamed aid organisations and MONUSCO amidst a protest over the killing of 15 civilians by an armed militia. Sources: AP (a), AP (b), The New York Times and VOA News

29 October 2018: In Fizi territory, South Kivu province, Congolese authorities banned all movement to and from the Lusenda Burundian refugee camp following the discovery within the camp of an armed man linked to the Burundian rebel group National Liberation Forces. Sources: Actualite and SOS Médias Burundi

31 October 2018: In Kilambo village, Bafuni region, Masisi territory, 10 IDPs, including teachers, were abducted by the Reformed Nduma Defence of the Congo militia. No further details specified. Source: ACLED

Defending human rights on the frontlines in Southeast Asia and the Pacific

From the mounting body count in the “war on drugs” perpetrated by Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte and his government, to the silencing of political opposition and independent media in Cambodia, to the Myanmar military’s violent campaign of murder, rape and arson that caused the flight of more than 720,000 Rohingya women, men, and children from northern Rakhine State to Bangladesh, the state of human rights in many countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific has continued along a deteriorating trajectory in 2018.

Amid a growing climate of impunity for human rights violations, human rights defenders (HRDs) are increasingly vulnerable. Governments across the region continue to fall short of, or even ignore, their obligation to protect HRDs, who often find themselves subjected to harassment, threats, criminal proceedings and violence. Those on the frontlines – such as youth and land activists, women’s rights defenders and trade unionists – are all too often the target of state repression for speaking out in defence of rights.

Tools of repression, from cyber surveillance to online harassment

Governments have displayed increasing intolerance of peaceful dissent and activism, abusing judicial powers to impose and enforce legislation that restricts the peaceful exercise of rights and shrinks civic space. Threats to a free media continue at a disturbing rate. In Singapore, activists have faced targeted pressure and criticism, including convictions for “scandalizing the judiciary” for expressing themselves on Facebook. In Thailand, scores of human rights defenders, journalists, politicians, lawyers and activists were prosecuted for peaceful assembly, and faced charges of criminal defamation and sedition. In Fiji, three media executives and a letter-writer were put on trial for sedition – and later acquitted – on charges that were politically motivated.

In the Philippines, as in Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia, there has been an increase in the use of social media to fuel hate speech against social, religious or ethnic minorities, particularly on Facebook. At the same time, people are increasingly being penalized for views expressed online, including peaceful criticisms of authorities. Repressive cyber laws are being pushed across the region, raising an unprecedented long-term threat to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. In one such example, in July Viet Nam passed a sweeping and deeply repressive new law that provides censors with the authority to force technology companies to hand over vast amounts of data, including personal information, and to censor users’ posts.

Despite committing to abolishing the death penalty, Thailand executed a 26-year-old man convicted of murder, thus ending an execution-free period of nine years.

Abusers hide behind mask of democracy

In Cambodia, Prime Minister Hun Sen’s party won the general elections in July — having used legislation and the judiciary to effectively eliminate any meaningful opposition and shut down dozens of media outlets in the lead-up to the vote. Myanmar’s power-sharing deal between the civilian government and the military has seen a further erosion of human rights and freedoms — despite the Aung San Suu Kyi-led National League for Democracy government having a majority in the Parliament, which would allow it to revise or abolish at least some of the most repressive laws.

Peaceful critics still targeted – despite hopes in Malaysia

Malaysia’s surprise election upset in May, which saw former Prime Minister Najib Razak ousted, was seen as a possible gateway to positive human rights change. Prisoner of conscience Anwar Ibrahim was released from jail, marking the end of over two decades of political persecution of the former opposition leader. In October, the government announced plans to repeal the death penalty for all crimes, as well as the repressive Sedition Act. These would represent significant steps forward if implemented.

Elsewhere, politically motivated arrest and detention of those speaking out on human rights violations continue unabated. In Myanmar, Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were each sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for their role in exposing a massacre, led by state security forces, of Rohingya men. In the Philippines in September, Duterte critic Senator Antonio Trillanes IV was arrested and released, and awaits trial on bail. Senator Leila de Lima has been in detention for over a year on politically motivated charges. In a rare positive development, Cambodian housing rights activist Tep Vanny was released from prison after serving two years of her politically motivated sentence. In Viet Nam, blogger Me Nâm (known as Mother Mushroom) was also released after two years in detention, and sent into exile in the USA.

LGBTI people continue to encounter major discrimination. In Malaysia and Indonesia, individuals can face intense persecution and harsh penalties under laws regulating sexuality. In August, two Malaysian women were fined and caned in publicfor “attempting lesbian sex”. In seven Pacific countries where homosexuality is criminalized thousands of people face prejudice and live under the threat of jail.

Lack of protection for refugees and asylum-seekers

Conditions for refugees, asylum-seekers and migrant workers remain extremely precarious throughout the region, made worse by a lack of formal legal protection for asylum-seekers in many countries. In August, authorities in Thailand placed in indefinite detention at least 168 Montagnard refugees from Viet Nam and Cambodia, including pregnant women and children. Earlier in the year, Thai authorities forcibly returned a Cambodian refugee, Sam Sokha, in violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

For refugees and internally displaced people, access to aid remains fraught. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Myanmar, where both the civilian and military authorities restrict access for UN and NGO humanitarian bodies. In Kachin and northern Shan states, authorities have blocked humanitarian access to areas beyond government control, while in Rakhine State, more than 125,000 people, mainly Rohingya, remain confined to squalid displacement camps where they rely on humanitarian assistance for their survival.

Australia continues to attract condemnation for its refusal to extricate over 1,000 asylum-seekers and refugees from bureaucratic limbo in the offshore processing centres it operates in Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, in partnership with those countries’ governments. High-profile cases involving denial of adequate medical care as well as suicide attempts by young people have led to calls on Australia by the UN, medical bodies, lawyers and broader civil society to correct its failings and live up to its duty of care to these people.

An accountability vacuum

Impunity of state security forces who violate human rights continues to flourish. In Indonesia, allegations of abuses regularly surfaced from its disputed Papua province, yet very few were independently investigated or the perpetrators held accountable in the country’s courts. Moves towards accountability – including passing legislation criminalizing torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand– continued to be delayed.

The Myanmar government has shown itself to be unable and unwilling to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the devastating campaign of violence against the Rohingya population in northern Rakhine State. Security forces killed thousands, raped women and girls, hauled men and boys off to detention sites and burned hundreds of Rohingya homes to the ground in what were clearly crimes against humanity and which a UN investigation team said may amount to genocide.

Extrajudicial executions continue in the third year of the “war on drugs” in the Philippines. Widespread evidence of police abuses as well as violations of the right to health - which may amount to crimes against humanity - highlight the urgent need for the UN to launch its own international investigation into the killings.

In the absence of national, independent and impartial inquiries in Myanmar or the Philippines, pressure is building at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for proceedings against individuals suspected of crimes against humanity and other crimes. In a positive move in February, the ICC announced the opening of a preliminary examination into the Philippines. In September, the UN Human Rights Council established an accountability mechanism to collect and preserve evidence of atrocities in Myanmar - a step forward on the path to justice, but no substitute for an ICC referral by the UN Security Council. The Philippines, together with China and Burundi, was the only state in the region to vote against the move.

Without a concerted effort to strengthen human rights protections – and the vital work of HRDs – the hardliners who loom large in this region are set to continue abusing rights and shattering human lives without consequence.

Recurrent drought, earthquakes, floods, typhoons, and volcanoes present significant challenges to vulnerable populations in the East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) region. Some countries also face civil unrest and associated humanitarian impacts, as well as limited government capacity to respond to disasters. Between FY 2009 and FY 2018, USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA) and USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (USAID/FFP) provided humanitarian assistance in response to a range of natural and complex emergencies in the region. Examples include cyclones and typhoons in Burma, the Pacific Islands, the Philippines, and Vietnam; earthquakes in China, Indonesia, Japan, and Papua New Guinea; floods in Burma, Cambodia, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Micronesia, and Vietnam; drought in the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Vietnam; volcanic activity in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vanuatu; winter emergencies in Mongolia; and conflict in Burma, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste.

USAID provided nearly $320.8 million to respond to disasters in the EAP region between FY 2009 and FY 2018. USAID/OFDA assistance included more than $183.6 million for programs in agriculture and food security; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive hazards; economic recovery and market systems; health; humanitarian coordination and information management; logistics support and relief commodities; nutrition; protection; search and rescue; risk management policy and practice; shelter and settlements; and water, sanitation, and hygiene. USAID/FFP support included nearly $137.2 million for emergency food assistance and nutrition support in the form of in-kind food aid, locally and regionally purchased food, cash transfers, food vouchers, and other activities.

In the last decade, USAID responded to 110 disasters in EAP. USAID frequently deployed humanitarian teams to the region, including five Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DARTs). USAID deployed DARTs to Indonesia following an earthquake in FY 2010; to New Zealand following an earthquake in FY 2011; to Japan in response to an earthquake and resulting tsunami and nuclear emergency in FY 2011; to the Marshall Islands in FY 2013 due to a drought; and to the Philippines in FY 2014 for Typhoon Haiyan. USAID also activated multiple Washington, D.C.-based Response Management Teams to support coordination and response efforts.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
HIGH COMMISSIONER’S PROGRAMME
STANDING COMMITTEE
74th Meeting
5-7 March 2019

NGO statement on the Asia and the Pacific

Dear Chair,

This statement has been drafted in consultation with a wide range of NGOs working in the Asia Pacific region. It reflects the diversity of views within the NGO community.

NGOs remain deeply concerned by the overall lack of protection for asylum seekers, refugees, IDPs, stateless persons and other people in need of protection, and the absence of legal protection frameworks at the national level, in most countries of the Asia Pacific region. Refugees and stateless people are subject to severe rights violations including arbitrary detention, lack of access to healthcare, education and lawful employment, exposure to exploitation and sexual and gender-based violence and, most seriously, forced return (refoulement) to countries in which they are likely to suffer persecution – a violation of the most fundamental of refugee protections and the core element of UNHCR’s mandate.

Ratification of the 1951 Convention and Introduction of National Refugee Legislation
Only 20 of the 45 countries in the Asia Pacific region are states party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and/or its 1967 Protocol. Some of these non-signatory states host the majority of the displaced populations and have supported some of the most urgent humanitarian needs.

In the absence of any legal or administrative framework for refugees or mechanisms for asylum processing, refugees and asylum seekers continue to be criminalised, remain at severe risk, and face potential refoulement. In Malaysia, a country with a considerable and complex migrant composition, legal frameworks lack clear distinctions between refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants, often subjecting people deserving of international protection to arbitrary and indefinite detention, compounding a number of significant rights violations. NGOs commend the newly appointed government in commitments made in the coalition’s manifesto during the election campaign, including the ratification of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. NGOs believe that Malaysia has an enviable opportunity to become a regional leader in protection of refugee rights. NGOs strongly urge Malaysia to fulfil the commitments made, and provide refugees with legal protection in the country. NGOs encourage other governments in the region to recognise and encourage this process, not only in Malaysia but in their own constituencies, joining the international community in recognising the fundamental legal rights of refugees.

NGOs encourage all states in the region, including those states which have signed other international human rights instruments, to ensure that they provide specific protections to refugees, asylum seekers and other people of concern.