It was confirmed once more that the Asian Pacific member states differ in their views how the issue of forced migrations should be tackled. While Australia believes that disabling international networks of smugglers of people would be the best way to solve this issue, Indonesia emphasizes that their main goal is to shed light on categories, that might have not been given as much attention as they should - unfortunately they did not specify which are these goals. "We will also work towards achieving a consensus broad enough so that the current draft resolution on FM is adopted," added H.E. ms. Orešnik. Republic of Korea, like Australia, stressed the need to address the issue of human trafficking and smuggling - it is not stated in the video but we received a consequent e-mail from the representative emphasizing this issue.
What is the right approach in their opinion? Australia expressed its support for the policy of burden sharing, and the same goes for Indonesia. "We believe that all countries should recognize the urgent neccessity of (a) mechanism(s), which would ensure a such a policy and potentially alleviate those countries, who cannot tackle the problems only by means own their own resources," stated H.E. ms. Orešnik. Republic of Korea finds the idea of policy of burden sharing very interesting but believes it must be discussed. The delegate also expressed support for the case by case approach. Malaysia on the other hand supports burden sharing, but on a bilateral level. "Malaysia respects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries and believes that forced migration issues should remain in the sovereignty of each individual country. Our primary goal is not to sign a legally binding document on forced migrations, because this is a very perplexed question and it should be resolved in terms of bilateral relations," also added H.E. ms. Mrdja, representative of Malaysia.
While Indonesia and Australia are very sceptical of a case-by-case-approach, Republic of Korea and Malaysia seem quite open for it. "Case-by-case approach is useful when situations are very diverse, however, it can lead to more bureaucratic complications," stated H.E. ms. Mulec, representative of Australia. H.E. ms. Orešnik said that individual treatment of each individual case or groups of similar cases would certainly be the right approach, yet it is still neccessary to establish a common ground. While South Korea is more inclined toward the case-by-case approach, it is also open for a discussion and possibility of burden sharing policy. Malaysia on the other hand doesn't leave that option open: "Malaysia completely supports the idea of a case by case approach seeing as the problem of forced migrations is such a complexed issue and needs to be resolved individually."
Unfortuntely we couldn't get a hold of other representatives of Asia Pacific member states, but we will pay attention today at the session to see what they think.
Video interview with H.E. mr. Jordan, representative of Republic of Korea
Tamara Kajtazović
____________________________________________
Complete interviews:
1. We have heard the position of Asian-Pacific region but as it is a very wide region, the standpoint on forced migrations was very broad. Are there any specific goals that your country wishes to achieve tomorrow in the GA?
AUSTRALIA: Australia believes, as we stated on many other occasions, that disabling international networks of smugglers of people would be the best way to solve this issue. However, this is only one of the ways - we also believe in burden sharing, making sure that people do not even have the need to leave their home (this would mean more development aid, fewer conflicts around the world etc).
INDONESIA: The Asian-Pacific region indeed is a very wide region, and it is affected by various forms and consequences of migrations in general. The main goal of the Republic of Indonesia is to shed light on categories, that might have not been given as much attention as they should. We will also work towards achieving a consensus broad enough so that the current draft resolution on FM is adopted.
MALAYSIA: Malaysia is aware that the forced migration and all the infringements of the migrants’ rights are a global problem; however Malaysia respects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries and believes that forced migration issues should remain in the sovereignty of each individual country. Our primary goal is not to sign a legally binding document on forced migrations, because this is a very perplexed question and it should be resolved in terms of bilateral relations.
2. Some states strongly advocate the policy of burden sharing. Do you support this policy and if yes, in what way do you it should be carried out?
AUSTRALIA: Yes, we do support burden sharing. We believe we should continue and expand current system, however, precise calculations would need to be made if we would all agree on more financial aid for this system. Australia, as many other recipient countries, already does a lot of work on its own - development help, internal law etc, but we believe this system should include all members of GA.
INDONESIA: Indonesia strongly believes in the policy of burden sharing. We believe that all countries should recognize the urgent neccessity of (a) mechanism(s), which would ensure a such a policy and potentially alleviate those countries, who cannot tackle the problems only by means own their own resources.
MALAYSIA: Malaysia supports the idea of burden sharing, but as mentioned before, on a more bilateral level.
3. Some have argued that a system which would work through a case-by-case approach is needed. What do you think about this?
AUSTRALIA: Case-by-case approach is useful when situations are very diverse, however, it can lead to more bureaucratic complications which could harm the intention itself. When help is needed, it needs to be granted ASAP (in cases such as natural disasters, etc). We think that there is room for a lot more research, talks and thought needed on the topic of actual granting of the financial aid through burden sharing system.
INDONESIA: Since every state finds itself in a unique set of various circumstances, it is obvious that a completely universal method that would work equally efficent for everyone, is practically impossible. Individual treatment of each individual case or groups of similar cases would certainly be the right approach, yet it is still neccessary to establish a common ground, a broad, general foundation which the country- and case-specific measures can rely upon.
MALAYSIA: Malaysia completely supports the idea of a case by case approach seeing as the problem of forced migrations is such a complexed issue and needs to be resolved individually. We can not treat the case of forced migrants fleeing the country due to war reasons the same as migrants that flee a country due to racial issues. Although both issues deserve global attention, Malaysia takes life-threatening cases more seriously.
0 comments:
Post a Comment