NO PLACE TO CALL HOME: An Analysis of Drivers of Refugee Treatment in China and India

Abstract

The United Nations Refugee Convention and its Protocol ushered in a new era of universal rights, for the first time creating an international legal framework protecting the rights of all individuals regardless of nation or legal status. For refugees, this meant that they were afforded protections under international law, even if the countries they sought refuge in would not give them these protections. Today, rising populism and growing nationalist sentiment in countries around the world are threatening the credibility of international human rights law, as populations are placing the rights of their own people above the rights of any outside group. China’s quiet agreements with North Korea to return all North Koreans entering its borders undermined international human rights law and sent chills through the international community. Why would China knowingly return these refugees, who will face severe punishment and possibly even execution upon their return?

The growing popularity of Hindu nationalism in India, along with the reelection of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, are creating new challenges for Muslims and other minority groups. As the rights of these groups are being stripped by Prime Minister Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, supporters of the party are becoming more hostile towards asylum seekers, including Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar. While at first met with indifference, Rohingya refugees in India are now the target of violent and extremist rhetoric by Indian news outlets, and face deportation threats by the Indian government. Why has India’s stance on Rohingya refugees evolved to become more hostile towards this group? How does this compare with China’s treatment of North Korean refugees? And more generally, what are the drivers of refugee treatment by receiving countries?

Through original research analysis and literature synthesis, substantial readings of United Nations and subsidiary organizations meeting notes, along with an interview of a prominent human rights group in China, this thesis found that China’s lack of a functioning civil society as an autocratic nation, along with its growing international power, have limited domestic and international pushback against its horrendous treatment of North Korean refugees, other minority groups, and its own citizens. For India, ethnic tensions between Hindus and Muslims, along with the election of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, have created an environment that demonizes Rohingya refugees for their Islamic religion and outsider status. China and India, as two of the largest countries in the world, are only growing in power—the way these regimes decide to handle current and future refugee situations will not only affect their domestic politics, but will influence refugee treatment worldwide.