Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Series -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- List of illustrations -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Australia's invasion angst -- 3 Who are the facilitators? -- 4 Criminalisation and punishment -- 5 Prevention through misinformation -- 6 The state as smuggler -- 7 Putting asylum out of reach -- Bibliography -- Index.

Troubled Transit considers the situation of asylum seekers stuck in limbo in Indonesia from a number of perspectives. It presents not only the narratives of many transit migrants but also the perceptions of Indonesian authorities and of representatives of international and non-government organizations responsible for the care of transiting asylum seekers. Fascinated by the extraordinary and seemingly limitless resilience shown by asylum seekers during their often lengthy and dangerous journeys, the author highlights one particular fragment of their journeys - their time in Indonesia, which many expect to be the last stepping stone to a new life. While they long for their new life to unfold, most asylum seekers become embroiled in the complexities of living in transit. Indonesia, a vast archipelago of more than 17,000 islands, is more than a location where people spend time waiting; it is a nation state that interacts with transiting asylum seekers and formulates policies that have a profound impact on their experience in transit there. Troubled Transit tries to explain the complexities faced by the transiting migrants within the context of the Indonesian government and its political challenges, including its relationship with Australia. The Australia-centric view of recent asylum seeker issues has tended to ignore the larger socio-political context of the migratory routes and the perspectives of transit states towards asylum seekers stuck in transit. This book hopes to direct the Australia-centric gaze northwards to take Indonesian policies and policymaking into account, thereby giving Indonesia more relevance as a transit country and as an important partner in regional protection schemes and migration management. Even though some Indonesian policies and practices are less than favourable for asylum seekers, and even reprehensible from a

Asylum seekers and refugees currently living in Indonesia tend to see Indonesia as a transit rather than a destination country, despite the fact that their stays are increasing in length. Based on contact with Muhamad (not his real name), a young refugee from Iran currently residing in Indonesia whose adjustment and development I observed over four years, I illustrate the changing priorities in his decision-making, the constant flux of circumstances and context, and the extreme complexity of primary and secondary factors that come into play in planning for the future. Combining a macro perspective with a case study, in which I present excerpts from several life-story interviews, helps to exemplify these generic migratory challenges and distil a range of relevant parameters that influence the decision-making of asylum seekers and refugees in transit. A (self-)critical reflection on ethical and methodological challenges underpins my analysis and argument, not least because politicians and policymakers are increasingly interested in influencing migratory decision-making processes to gain political advantage. Of particular interest in my analysis is the role of Australia's deterrence policies in asylum seekers' decision-making. Despite the ethical challenges associated with studying migratory decision-making - as public knowledge of migration strategies can also suppress aspirations of mobility - I argue for more in-depth and longitudinal research. At the very least, this is because more intensive, yet considerate studies of decision-making will help us to take seriously the migratory aspirations of people with limited choices.

Many diaspora scholars view the wish to return home as an essential characteristic of diasporism. In line with this, my research suggests, that the wish to return to Aceh is omnipresent among Acehnese diasporans residing in Malaysia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, USA and Australia. Yet despite the significance of the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding, a peace agreement bringing relative peace and stability to Aceh in August 2005, the reality is that many Acehnese diasporans refrain from returning or postpone going home. On the one hand, the preference to remain in exile is based on a general mistrust of the peace agreement. On the other hand, over the years diasporans have settled in their host countries quite well, not just materially but also politically. In exile, they can become long-distance spectators and commentators, immersing themselves in criticism and providing advice to their Aceh-based countrymen without having to bear any consequences for their involvement. Their public exposure also earns them popularity and prestige among their co-ethnics. Due to this �prestigious overseas bonus� they may even enjoy more attention than they would receive if they were back home. This article looks at political participation of Acehnese diasporans in the post-conflict period. By examining their comments, critiques and aspirations expressed in Acehnese newspapers, email-lists and press statements, I point to some reasons why remaining in exile has its �political� comforts, too.

This article sheds light on how the Acehnese diaspora adapted to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), a peace deal signed between the Indonesian government and the Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (Free Aceh Movement, GAM) after almost 30 years of small-scale war in Aceh. Analysing diasporic responses requires taking two sites into consideration: the host countries where Acehnese diasporans reside and the homeland, to which diasporans return and engage in local politics. Spontaneous and temporary return decreased the Acehnese diaspora significantly in numbers and this decline correlated with a loss of impact on homeland politics. Unlike in conflict times, the homeland no longer requires their involvement. Most remaining diasporans adjust to the loss of significance by transforming their collective activities to suit their new and more limited opportunities. Rather than long-distance politics they focus on identity politics to nurture their Acehneseness abroad. However, at the same time, the process of de-diasporisation is accompanied by a subtle wave of political re-diasporisation. Since the conflict in Aceh was the main rationale for the diasporisation of the Acehnese overseas, the end of conflict now threatens the diasporic cohesion. In order to save not only the notion of togetherness, but also the diaspora's reputation as a spearhead for Aceh's independence, a few diasporans continue to dedicate their activities to this separatist cause.