When Transit States Pursue Their Own Agenda

Abstract

The growing literature on transit countries places much emphasis on the policy interventions of destination countries. In the case of Southeast Asia, Australian policies have disproportionate effects across borders into the region, including those of Indonesia and Malaysia. However, so-called transit countries also counterweigh foreign policy incursions with domestic politics, their own policies of externalizing their borders, and negotiations with destination countries to fund their domestic capacity. While Malaysia and Indonesia share many characteristics as transit countries, they are also noteworthy cases of how they negotiate their own interests in making difficult decisions regarding irregular migration in the region and how responsibility and burdens should be shared.

When Bare Life is Bearable: The Life Projects of Rohingya and Hazara Refugees Living in Malaysia

“…While both Rohingya and Hazara refugees described Malaysia as a safer place and a shelter, the two groups did not agree on whether Malaysia was, in fact, a transit country. Despite scholars, international agencies like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the Malaysian government itself considering Malaysia a transit country (Tedong et al 2018;Missbach and Hoffstaedter 2020), findings here suggest that Malaysia is simultaneously a transit and a destination country, depending on which group of refugees is considered. This article's second contribution is to provide deeper understanding of bare life and life projects undertaken by refugees to make their life more bearable in Malaysia.…”

“…Two key messages emerged in this section. First, despite scholars, international agencies, and the Malaysian government itself considering Malaysia a transit country (Hoffstaedter 2017;Missbach and Hoffstaedter 2020), findings here suggest that Malaysia was largely a destination country for the Rohingyas. Second, given the lifethreatening situations and experiences of violence that respondents faced in their origin countries, both refugee groups viewed Malaysia as a safer place.…”

“…While scholars, international agencies, and the Malaysian government have viewed Malaysia as a transit country (Tedong et al 2018;Missbach and Hoffstaedter 2020), this article showed that Malaysia was seen as a transit country for Hazaras but a destination country for Rohingyas. Since Rohingyas fled Myanmar due to threats to their lives and livelihoods with no specific transit or destination in mind, Malaysia was not their initially imagined transit or destination.…”

“…According to Missbach and Phillips (2020, 19), transit states refer to countries through which migrants, including refugees and asylum-seekers, "try to pass on their way to another destination country." Scholars and policy-makers have regarded many Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, as transit countries (Hussain 2017;Missbach and Hoffstaedter 2020;Shum 2021).…”

Muslim Solidarity and the Lack of Effective Protection for Rohingya Refugees in Southeast Asia

“…Traditionally, Indonesia and Malaysia perceive themselves as nonimmigrant nations, which means that they do not allow for permanent refugee resettlement in their respective territories (Dewansyah et al 2017;Dewansyah and Handayani 2018). De facto, Indonesia and Malaysia have become hosting states that informally tolerate the presence of refugees and asylum seekers without offering any effective pathway for their naturalisation or long-term integration (Lego 2012(Lego , 2018Missbach 2017;Missbach and Hoffstaedter 2020). ASEAN has not addressed the root causes of the Rohingya crisis and has failed to support efforts to investigate the military's atrocity crimes or pursue accountability (Moretti 2018).…”