How does China’s overseas humanitarian action compare with that of other regional players in the Asia-Pacific? National governments often play a key role in humanitarian affairs in the region, which faces significant natural disaster risks. To situate Chinese engagement within broader trends in the Asia-Pacific, this section considers Japan’s leadership in the humanitarian sector and India’s history of hosting displaced populations. Asia’s three largest economies provide contrasting examples of state-based approaches to humanitarianism and refugee relief.
Japan’s overseas leadership in the humanitarian sector
Japan’s diplomatic engagement and financial support for humanitarian responses is well-established, and the provision of overseas development assistance (ODA) has long been a diplomatic tool for the country. Japan continues to be one of the most important partners of UNHCR. The country is also a generous donor towards UNRWA’s humanitarian activities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Japanese government remained a strong supporter, financially and politically, of forcibly displaced people. In fact, the Japanese government and civil society not only maintained, but increased, their financial and political commitments to UNHCR throughout the pandemic. According to an interviewee, awareness and empathy for the plights of forcibly displaced people have increased among Japanese citizens during the pandemic.
Similar to China, the government of Japan often takes a development-centred approach to implementing foreign assistance. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the governmental body that delivers the bulk of Japan’s ODA, engages on refugee issues via well-established partnerships and through the lens of human security and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, in Uganda, JICA is currently engaged in a capacity-building project targeting local governments in refugee-hosting areas; a programme of support for the office of the prime minister, deploying a refugee adviser to provide technical assistance; infrastructure construction; a study on social investment for refugee-related businesses; and livelihood support through rice farming. In discussions for this paper, JICA officials noted that, in their experience in humanitarian responses, successful programming for a development agency depends on strategic coordination with humanitarian actors; a well-designed baseline survey to understand the gaps in assistance; and, given the changing nature of humanitarian contexts, such as a large influx of refugees, measurement of progress through a balanced series of indicators (not overly specific or ambitious). JICA’s partnerships and technical expertise allow the organization to work effectively in overseas refugee situations – in line with Japan’s traditional role in humanitarian action and diplomacy.
Finally, while Japan is a leading humanitarian contributor overseas, the country’s domestic treatment of asylum seekers and refugees remains a delicate matter. This is due to issues such as low refugee acceptance rates, immigration detention, and limited – albeit increasing – resettlement opportunities. Leading international engagement on refugee relief, while maintaining restrictive domestic asylum policies, creates a tension that actors engaging with Japan must consider.
Overall, Japan’s humanitarian diplomacy provides a useful model to compare with China’s more recent action in the sector. Within a strategic post-Second World War rebalancing of its global status, Japan was one of the earliest non-Western and non-Christian states to integrate into the humanitarian sector – through investments in the country’s political leadership and technical capacity to work overseas. Unlike China, Japan is a member of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative. Japan is also a key contributor to economic development assistance in refugee situations. From an economic development perspective, JICA’s programming on refugee relief is a model that Chinese actors could increasingly adopt, given China’s development-oriented approach to refugee relief and its potential cooperation within the UN-led humanitarian–development nexus framework. As China’s CIDCA develops, it remains to be seen whether Chinese humanitarian institutions and donor platforms will converge with international mechanisms. Lastly, Japan’s international recognition in this space contrasts with the wider perception of China’s growing humanitarian engagement, which must contend with increasing high-level geopolitical tensions and varying local-level responses to increased on-the-ground presence of Chinese humanitarian organizations and actors, for example in Belt and Road Initiative partner countries.
India’s history of hosting displaced people
India was once considered an aid-receiving country, but since the early 1990s it has gradually become recognized as an emerging donor. India’s assistance to Afghanistan in 2001 and to post-tsunami Sri Lanka in 2006 were turning points for the country’s provision of humanitarian aid. On refugee relief, India is an important partner of UNHCR, and the country plays a key role in supporting conflict resolution dialogues and providing development and humanitarian assistance. In recent years, India’s development partnerships have expanded to reach low-income countries within and beyond the Asia-Pacific region, through developmental assistance and capacity-building programmes under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation Programme (ITEC). India has also consistently supported UNRWA’s core programme budget over the years with unearmarked funding. Since 2020, the presence of India on UNRWA’s Advisory Commission reflects a broader and more diverse donor base, bringing new voices and insights to the agency’s high-level consultations with member states.
China and India have a history of non-intervention approaches in their foreign policy, which influences their responses to international crises.
Within its growing overseas engagement, Indian funding and diplomatic activities on refugee issues remain limited, compared to leading actors in the sector. However, these metrics do not capture a country’s complete contributions to the plight of the forcibly displaced – particularly outside Western donor countries. India’s domestic history of hosting displaced populations is vast and mixed – a patchwork of safe havens and exclusionary policies. India has hosted many displaced populations, for example from Sri Lanka, Tibet and Afghanistan. In other situations, such as the recent influx of Rohingya refugees, human rights groups have drawn attention to cases of forced repatriations. A non-signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention, India lacks of a formal legal framework on refugees and this enables the government to implement ad hoc policy decisions regarding refugees and displaced people, both domestically and internationally. While China is a signatory to the convention, it also lacks a robust legal framework for domestic and overseas engagement on the issue.
International perceptions of India as an emerging donor are also developing in parallel to China’s growing donor activities. Paula Banerjee cautions that colonialism has had a deep impact on Indian foreign policy and, in some cases, created mistrust in international humanitarian interventions. Both China and India have a history of non-intervention approaches in their foreign policy, which influences their responses to international crises. As is the case with China, Indian diplomats in multilateral forums have also underscored India’s status as a developing country, and highlighted that the UN must consider the development needs of low- and middle-income countries hosting large numbers of refugees. Finally, India’s diverse history on displacement issues is a useful reference for assessing how China’s local governments engage in cross-border issues and the extent of China’s integration within humanitarian institutions and norms.
Japan’s humanitarian diplomacy and India’s patchwork of domestic and international responses to displacement provide contrasting examples to contextualize perceptions and expectations of Chinese humanitarianism. Regional comparisons are not exhaustive, given significant differences in national contexts and histories. Nevertheless, they are helpful for discussing the convergences and divergences of each country’s international engagement on refugee relief. Growing international interest in China’s overseas activities should also consider broader humanitarian trends in the Asia-Pacific.
