Refugees and Asylum Seekers in East Asia

This project set out to examine refugee policies and experiences in two East Asian nations, Japan and Taiwan, which have received relatively little scholarly attention compared to Europe and other refugee-hosting countries and regions of the world. In the introduction, we emphasised the interconnection between human security and refugee policies and experiences, and we shed light on the similarities in the way human security is approached by Japan and Taiwan, despite the substantial differences between the two countries. This book explored this linkage from the standpoints of legal and policy frameworks, media studies, and the ethnography or phenomenology of individual experiences. As this book has shown, none of these aspects should be looked at in isolation, as they intersect and shape each other, and, together, they feed into national and international human security agendas.

First, Part I showed that the legal framework of refugee acceptance and recognition plays a direct role in shaping refugees’ experiences, as the legal rules concerning their entry, stay, freedom of movement, employment, and social security might aim to foster newcomers’ integration or not. Those rules will determine what kind of bureaucracy they will encounter on their asylum-seeking journey, what rights and freedoms they can enjoy or can lack, and to what extent they will be able to satisfy their needs and participate in the life of the host society. All those aspects, in turn, will have positive or adverse effects on their subjective experiences of safety, care, protection, belonging or, in contrast, on their feelings of loneliness, insecurity, and unappreciation. The global refugee regime with its “rules, norms” entrenched in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and “decision-making procedures that govern states’ responses to refugees” (Betts, 2015) does not apply to Taiwan, as a non-signatory to the Convention, and does not seem sufficient to ensure refugee protection in Japan. Developing effective legal frameworks at the national and possibly regional levels therefore seems crucial for refugee human security and positive integration experiences in both countries.

Next, Part II, which looks at media representation and public opinion, views human security not as a monolithic and fixed project but as a dynamic creative process. The chapters of Part II examine social construction and the perception of images of refugees and asylum seekers in traditional and new media. On the one hand, media representations reflect existing images of different groups of foreigners in a host society, while, on the other hand, mass media willingly or unwillingly reshapes and further consolidates those images, sometimes projecting on newcomers unwanted or unacceptable aspects of the host culture. These projections tend to affect the ways the populations in question are perceived and the types of responses they get from host nations, directly influencing their experiences in real life.

The average Facebook user may sometimes get the impression that society as a whole is intolerant of refugees, based on numerous aggressive posts. This is where a scholarly perspective on public opinion becomes especially valuable. Using carefully designed large-scale survey instruments, researchers obtain a much more nuanced and balanced view of the actual opinion of the wider public on refugee acceptance and integration. Results of such surveys should form the basis of the evidence informing policymakers’ decisions to start accepting and accommodating more and diverse asylum seekers, and gradually liberalise immigration policies.

Finally, this volume also problematised the idea of human security by considering the experiences of specific groups that are marginalised or systematically discriminated against both in Taiwan and in Japan. Part III, on refugees’ and asylum seekers’ lived experiences, allows the reader to go even deeper, engaging their imagination and empathy as they grasp the affected people’s situations beyond mere cognitive understanding. The editors believe that engaging the feelings and empathy of the wider public is an essential condition for making a positive change possible. One of the main strengths of human security as a conceptual framework for this book is that it offers a broader and more human-centred understanding of refugee and asylum seeker categories. For instance, Indonesian technical trainees applying for asylum in Japan could be labelled as “bogus refugees” or “fake refugees” if viewed through the lens of a narrow interpretation of the Refugee Convention. However, if we consider the circumstances of abuse and exploitation in their workplace, their lack of social support and of access to reliable information in the host country, along with the severe scarcity of employment opportunities in their country of origin, we can see how filing an asylum claim could become an act of despair and of last resort, to stay alive and to continue providing for their families. Viewing similar cases in the light of human security, Lester (2010) refers to them as “survival migrants”, seeking to avoid populist and damaging distinctions between “good”/“genuine” refugees and “bogus” asylum seekers.

The Main Findings and Their Implications

By examining the three distinct yet interconnected areas, namely legal and policy frameworks, media representation and public opinion, and lived experiences of refugees and asylum seekers in Taiwan and Japan, this volume collectively contributed to the existing debates on human security. The book showed how both Taiwan and Japan, two East Asian democracies that aspire to integrate a human security agenda in different policy areas, fail when it comes to the acceptance, protection, and integration of refugees and asylum seekers in their own territories. The presence of non-citizens seems to challenge accepted notions of citizenship and perceptions of national security and sovereignty. As a result, national interests and state security end up being prioritised. This means that refugee regimes and asylum systems in Taiwan and Japan are often shaped by concerns linked to traditional security rather than human security.

As part of the major objective of this work, to raise awareness of the plight of asylum seekers in two East Asian island nations, we hope that the book will help to debunk certain myths and common stereotypes about migration in East Asia, for example, related to the alleged homogeneity of the Japanese society or the presumed absence of refugee populations in Japan or Taiwan.

The wide array of case studies and the considerable variety of approaches make a direct comparison between the chapters impossible. However, some tendencies and parallels do emerge from the cases investigated throughout the book. First, although asylum policies in Japan and Taiwan are slowly showing signs of improvement, they are overall still insufficient compared to international standards and inadequate to meet the needs of existing refugees and asylum seekers, let alone future displaced populations such as climate migrants. With only a few notable exceptions due to special political considerations, both countries seem to be largely closed to the mass immigration of refugees and asylum seekers. In Noll’s (2003) terms, they are practising passive insulation, that is, they are remaining passive vis-à-vis protection seekers, relying on “natural impediments” such as geographical distance or seas, as well as active insulation in the form of visa systems, border control, carrier sanctions, both of which he qualified as the “outright rejection of protective obligations” (Noll, 2003, p. 279).

In response to the overall unwillingness of both countries to provide asylum, people in refugee-like situations adopt different strategies for getting into the country and staying there. While some may come as students, others attempt to establish themselves as ethnic entrepreneurs or file an asylum claim to gain precious time. One of the major differences between Japan’s and Taiwan’s immigration policies consists in their approaches to importing blue-collar workers. Taiwan has an official guest worker programme (Tierney, 2007) while Japan runs a similar programme covertly, disguised as “technical training” (Widarahesty, 2022). However, both programmes are characterised by the precariousness of workers and a lack of long-term integration opportunities, which undermines their human security and pushes some of them to search for asylum.

Despite the book’s focus on refugees in two East Asian countries—Japan and Taiwan—some of its ideas may be applicable beyond this geopolitical scope. Migration researchers into other areas may easily discover parallels with their case studies as refugees in many parts of the world are experiencing similar uncertainty and ambiguity due to the inadequate policy responses and legal mechanisms in host countries. For instance, recent studies on Syrian refugees in Turkey also show how the host country government’s reliance on temporary legislation and policies, ad hoc solutions, and discretionary power contributes to a prolonged liminality, or in-betweenness, for Syrian refugees (Şahin-Mencütek et al., 2023). In the context of African refugees living in camps for years, Abuya (2010) critically examines situations when “refugees remain in host countries for a prolonged, often unspecified duration of time, with no durable solution in sight” (Abuya, 2010, p. 127) and concludes that these situations “threaten the human security of refugees as well as the security of host states, the country of origin and the international community” (p. 125). These “protracted” situations and the uncertainty they bring tend to cause a breakdown in social structures leading in turn to “family breakdown, violence, socio-economic deprivation and health problems” (Abuya, 2010, p. 125). Uncertainty and the lack of durable solutions for refugees and asylum seekers, often imposed in the name of the security of the host nationals, generate insecurities in migrant populations.

Unlike the African continent, characterised by a series of “complex emergencies” (OCHA, 2003), or Turkey, which is hosting the greatest number of refugees in the world as of 2023 (UNHCR, n.d.) and is close to several zones of ongoing military conflicts, Japan and Taiwan have been enjoying a relative political stability and peacefulness for decades. There are no refugee camps, and any asylum seekers are spread throughout the population. Both countries also have relatively high living standards, and both are dealing with a demographic crisis of ageing and shrinking populations and related labour shortages. In this context, among the three durable solutions for refugees—voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement in a third country (UNHCR-USA, n.d.)—the second option would seem the most logical and beneficial for both refugees and the host societies.

Local integration comprises legal, economic, and sociocultural dimensions (UNHCR, 2003, pp. 23–24). The legal dimension involves progressively granting refugees with a range of rights and entitlements; ideally, this process should lead to permanent residence and the acquisition of citizenship in the host country (UNHCR, 2003, p. 25). Article 34 of the 1951 Convention calls on states to “as far as possible facilitate assimilation and naturalization of refugees” in the host countries (UNHCR, 2010, p. 30). According to the UNHCR’s estimates, 1.1 million refugees around the world have acquired citizenship of their country of asylum (UNHCR-USA, n.d.), and both Taiwan and Japan could contribute to these numbers more actively by offering legal pathways to citizenship to those refugees who have stayed in their territories for years and have established close links with the host country.

The economic dimension signifies that refugees can become self-reliant and can contribute to the economy of the host country, instead of being reliant on state aid or humanitarian assistance. High living standards such as in Taiwan and Japan also imply a high cost of living and a predominance of knowledge-intensive jobs. Therefore, refugees who wish to integrate in such societies typically require better education and greater efforts to become economically independent. Therefore, they need sustained support from the state and non-state actors to ensure their inclusion into the education system and labour market.

Finally, the sociocultural dimension of refugees’ local integration means living without discrimination or exploitation and the ability to actively contribute to the social life of their new community in the host country. The contributing chapters have unanimously agreed that both Taiwan and Japan could do better in these three domains. Our findings show that both Taiwan and Japan fail to provide adequate support for the refugees’ local integration and in cases of defining them as “evacuees”, “students”, or “migrant workers”, they also deny them access to a third-country settlement. This lack of recognition and access to durable solutions jeopardises their human security both in the short term and in the long run.

Limitations of this Project and Recommendations for Further Research

Since the scope of the volume is limited to Japan and Taiwan, generalisations to the rest of East Asia should be made with caution, apart from inevitable parallels between refugee situations characterised by high degrees of uncertainty and a lack of durable solutions as discussed above.

This book has attempted to provide a broad coverage of different ethnic groups comprising asylum-seeking populations in Japan and Taiwan. As such, it has included entire chapters on Hong Kongers, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Kurds, and chapter sections on Afghans, Syrians, and Ukrainians. Nevertheless, the analysis has not been comprehensive and information on many important refugee groups is missing. Adapting to inadequate asylum systems, some groups of asylum seekers display distinct coping strategies. For example, some Indonesians choose to apply for asylum, whereas Syrians, Afghans, and certain Hong Kongers enrol as international students, while others may open ethnic businesses or choose marriage migration routes. Future studies may uncover more survival strategies among different refugee groups, evaluating their rationale and successfulness and informing policies to be able to support their integration more effectively.

Being aware that gender is an important dimension shaping migration and related processes, we believe that future research should explore how gender relations, roles, and hierarchies influence legal and policy frameworks, media representation, and public opinion, as well as the lived experiences of male and female refugees and asylum seekers. In line with this point, and reflecting a growing concern within the literature, it would be also important to explore the experiences of non-binary and queer individuals.

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Since the findings show that the current asylum system is often incapable of protecting the human rights and dignity of asylum seekers, there is a pressing need/priority to build an efficient, robust, and up-to-date refugee reception and recognition system in both Japan and Taiwan. Another repeated recommendation from the chapter authors and human rights activists is to abolish detention for visa overstayers, and this proposal is being supported by some policymakers (Kawarada, 2021).

At the same time, sustainable solutions for refugees and asylum seekers cannot be achieved without a comprehensive reform of the entire immigration system. Many forced migrants come to the host country under different visa regimes, for example, students, trainees, workers, tourists, and marriage migrants. These people may either never seek asylum or choose to seek it later becoming refugees “sur place” (UNHRC, 2019, p. 26). Improving the human security of vulnerable foreigners in Japan and Taiwan would therefore require a structural reform of the immigration law and practice, making legal pathways for many migrant categories more transparent. This would include, for instance, facilitating mechanisms for migrants overstaying their visa to legalise their status and get access to social security and the official labour market. Additionally, the system for immigrant workers needs to be strengthened. Those who wish to work in understaffed industries should be allowed to come on a long-term basis, bring their families, be ensured of fair and equal treatment on a par with the local labour force, and be offered opportunities to naturalise if they desire.

Due to the lack of international recognition, Taiwan cannot join the Convention and the Protocol, and judging from the experience of Japan, adoption of the international mechanisms does not guarantee the effectiveness of the domestic asylum system. However, this should not stop Taiwan from creating effective systems of refugee reception, protection, and integration. As Chapter 3 advocates, Taiwan could learn useful lessons from other non-UN member states and territories. In addition, it may be time to think of alternative mechanisms of refugee protection, based on a regional framework. Several parts of the world have created regional instruments relating to refugees. A number of regional treaties regulate the issues of diplomatic and territorial asylum in Latin America, and the Organisation of African Unity adopted its own convention on refugees in Africa in 1969, with a refugee definition different from that of the Protocol and the Convention (UNHCR, 2019, p. 15). As consolidated liberal democracies, Japan and Taiwan could become leaders in creating an up-to-date and effective regional refugee regime in Asia based on ideas of human rights and human security. Building on the idea of “sovereignty as responsibility” (Bellamy & McDonald, 2002, p. 376), this volume calls on the Taiwanese and Japanese governments to take responsibility for the security of the non-citizens residing in their territory, to identify factors that generate insecurity among these populations, and to develop specific national strategies to address these issues.

Concluding Remarks

We believe in the continued relevance of the topics of refugee protection and inclusion. At the end of 2022, 108.4 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced (UNHCR, 2023b) which included over 14 million in Asia (UNHCR, 2023a). These trends are expected to continue and displaced populations will require long-term solutions. For instance, over 2.4 million refugees will be in need of resettlement in 2024, a 20% increase compared to 2023 (UNHCR, 2023c). Since the root causes of forced displacement are military conflicts, persecution, and human rights violations, along with the loss of livelihood due to environmental degradation and climate change, it seems important to connect national and regional refugee regimes with a broader agenda of human security and sustainable development. The practical implementation of human security principles may be realised through reliance on existing international frameworks, such as sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 on peace, justice, and strong institutions, and SDGs 13, 14, and 15, related to the environment, as well as the Global Compact on Refugees with its Roadmap to 2030, which aims to ease the burden on host communities and to enhance refugee self-reliance (UN, 2018).