[Nasional-e] Why only 11 refugees?

[Ambon]

EDITORIAL: Why only 11 refugees?

Japan should accept more refugees.

As a person or as a nation, we have a moral imperative to extend a helping
hand to people in severe distress.

Japan, however, has never been eager to help the international society's
most vulnerable given the fact that it has so far taken in only 300
refugees, although it signed the Convention Relating the Status of Refugees
more than 20 years ago. Japan admitted only 11 refugees last year, according
to a group of lawyers providing support to asylum seekers.

On the other hand, Japan has been quite welcoming foreign dancers and
singers, issuing business visas for nearly 100,000 entertainers from abroad
every year.

``Under Japan's immigration control, does entertainment take far higher
priority over consideration for refugees?'' asked Sadako Ogata, a former
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, criticizing the Japanese government's
stance toward the issue in her message sent to a symposium on the refugee
problem organized last year by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations.

Major Western countries accept several thousands to dozens of thousands
refugees annually. Even New Zealand, a small island nation, takes in some
400 a year. Japan cannot expect its hugely conspicuous reluctance to admit
refugees to be tolerated by the international community for long.

Amid strong criticism about Japan's asylum policy, growing both at home and
abroad, a personal advisory panel for the justice minister on immigration
control issues has drawn up a report on the nation's system to grant asylum.

The interim report recommends that the term for asylum applications should
be extended to six months or a year from the current 60 days from entry into
Japan. Japan has also been accused of often detaining and deporting refugees
who are in the process of applying for asylum. The advisory panel has urged
the government to stop this practice and allow asylum applicants to stay in
the country while their applications are properly screened.

The Justice Ministry plans to draft and present a bill to the Diet for some
amendments to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law based on
the panel's recommendations. This move represents a step in the right
direction, but is clearly insufficient for improving the situation in any
significant way.

We have been calling on the government to assign the job of screening asylum
applications, which is now performed by the immigration authorities, to a
new independent screening agency to be helped by experts in refugee problems
who belong to credited international or civil organizations. That's because
we believe accepting refugees and supporting their lives in Japan is a
mission different in nature from the tasks of the immigration authorities.

The purpose of immigration control, as clearly defined in the law, is to
``prevent criminals and other foreigners who might harm Japan's interests
from entering the country.'' So the mission of immigration officers is to
discover foreigners who should not be allowed to enter Japan. They are
simply not the right kind of officials for the job of granting asylum to
qualified applicants.

People are fleeing countries or regions under widely differing situations,
such as the Kurdish areas in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Myanmar and many
African countries. Cooperation from experts well versed in the local
situations is essential if screenings of asylum seekers are to be conducted
effectively and appropriately.

One unsuccessful asylum applicant from Myanmar who has brought his case into
court appeals to the Japanese government to ``stop treating me like a
criminal.'' A Kurd in the same situation says Japan keeps its door almost
completely closed to refugees.

The government should listen to the voices of such asylum seekers and take
steps to improve its asylum system to accept more refugees, taking account
of the unstable situations in east Asia.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 8(IHT/Asahi: January 9,2003)