Why we need to talk about the Tamil asylum seeker boat

Since the public was first made aware of the  153 Tamil asylum seekers who were on a leaky boat off the coast of Christmas Island, the Australian Government has refused to provide further information about the fate of the boat. Today however, more troubling reports are emerging about the fate of the Tamil boat, and the Australian Government is remaining silent.

“We are experiencing huge waves and very bad conditions”, came the call from a man on board the boat. “We are very afraid and at threat. We have only three litres of water left. We can only manage for today, and tomorrow we will have nothing to drink.”

There were 37 children on board, two were sick with vomiting, fevers and headaches.

Since Saturday little more has been made known about the fate of the boat and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has continued to treat the Australian public with contempt. He refused to comment on the situation, as “no boats have arrived”, explaining that the government’s policy is that it does not comment on on-water activities in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders. “I am advised that I have no such report to provide to you today”.

But last night new and disturbing reports emerged that the silent boat has been handed over to the Sri Lankan military.

Has Australia committed a deliberate breach of the Refugee Convention?

By failing to allow people to lodge their claim for asylum and sending them back to a country where they may face persecution, Australia could be stepping over a line – breaking international law and the Refugee Convention.

The Refugee Council of Australia has released a statement saying, “As a Refugee Convention signatory, Australia has a clear obligation not to send asylum seekers back to danger without giving them a chance to put their case for refugee protection.”

In international law there is a term called non-refoulement, which forbids the return of a person to a country where they are at risk of persecution.

And Tamil people in Sri Lanka are at risk! In fact, according to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance, Sri Lanka is ranked second for unexplained disappearances of civilians, second only to Iraq.

Returning a group of people at risk of persecution, demonstrates an outright and blatant disrespect for international law by the Australian Government.

What’s more, it is a clear indication of the true objectives and interests of the Abbott Government. If ‘saving lives at sea’ was the ultimate objective of Operation Sovereign Borders, then wouldn’t that concern extend to the lives beyond the threat of drowning at sea. Nauru and Manus Island OPCs act as deterrents to boarding a boat to Australia, but the Government maintains the argument that Offshore Processing is a necessary deterrent to ensure no one takes a risky boat journey to Australia.  But how does sending people back to a place where they could be imprisoned, tortured and even killed pertain to the objectives of saving lives at sea’? Just as rescuing a person from shark infested waters by placing them in a jungle with leopards is not a safeguard against death, just a removal from a certain kind of death, rescuing people from the ocean and returning them to their former place of persecution does little to protect their lives.

It does however protect our borders. And at the end of the day, that is what is important.

This latest chapter in the ongoing Morrison vs. Asylum Seekers war is perhaps the darkest. If these reports are confirmed to be true, what has happened will open Australia up to international criticism, as the country that has blatantly ignored the international obligations of the Refugee Convention.

 

Cambodia agrees to resettle Australia’s refugees

Australia is shirking its responsibility to protect refugees, again. This time, Cambodia, one of Asia’s poorest countries, is in the process of signing an agreement to resettle Australian-bound asylum seekers.

In a move that has been condemned by activist and human rights groups, it is expected that Cambodia will offer permanent resettlement to people seeking asylum from war and persecution. Details of the agreement are yet to be released, but late Tuesday night the Secretary of State, Ouch Borith confirmed the agreement, stating that his government would “do the work according to international standards”.

So what is so wrong with this agreement? Isn’t it good that desperate people who are seeking safety will finally have access to the constantly evasive legal protection?

The thing with refugee resettlement, is that countries that offer resettlement are required to provide education and labour opportunities, not simply safety. As Phil Robertson, deputy director Human Rights Watch in Asia says, Cambodia’s “capacity to take care of asylum seekers or refugees is low”.

The kingdom of Cambodia is still recovering from its own history of civil war and violence.  It was only a few decades ago that scores of people fled the nation as it was consumed in brutal violence, genocide and war crimes under the Khmer Rouge regime. With one of the worst human rights records in the region the nation is still recovering. Many Cambodians live in abject poverty, surviving hand to mouth while children and women are vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking. Australia is consistent donor to the nation, providing more than $244.5 million in aid over the past three years.

Human rights lawyer, David Manne told ABC radio that “there are real concerns about people’s safety [in Cambodia]. Beyond that, there are indeed other obligations that Australia has committed to at the international community in relation to refugees”, including a commitment not to move refugees around the world to precarious situations where their safety could not be guaranteed.

The Human Development Index in 2013 ranks Cambodia at 138 out of 187 countries. And guess where Australia sits? Second. In case you didn’t get that, I’ll repeat. Second. Meanwhile the two other countries Australia has shirked its responsibility of protecting asylum seekers to, Papua New Guinea and Nauru, sit at 156 and 164 respectively.

Considering asylum seekers are currently living without basic human rights in Australian run offshore processing centres in the aforementioned Nauru and PNG, perhaps the Cambodia agreement is a positive step forward for those who are found to be refugees.

But the answer to these issues should not come down to an either or.

Australia has an obligation, not just to humanity, but to an international convention it helped to draft, to provide protection for people fleeing war and persecution.

I have worked with people who have come to Australia by boat, both those living in Australia and those in the offshore centres. Not one of these people I have met took a boat journey because they wanted better economic opportunities. They came because they cannot live in their homeland. They feared for their lives. That journey across the ocean on a small boat is not a choice. They are aware of the very real reality of death and those who do make it, often begin to grow grey hair, a physical sign of the internal stress they experienced during the week long journey. But rather than Australia recognising the bravery and acknowledging our commitments of the convention, they are treated to a hostile reception and tossed between political policies like a pig-skin on a football field.

Phil Robertson describes the Cambodia agreement as “absolutely shameful and [deserving of] public condemnation across the region, from Phnom Pen to Canberra and by the UNHCR”.

Only time will tell what the response to this agreement will be, but if history is any indicator, it will somehow slip through legislation, just as the Offshore Solution did in 2012.

All of these policies serve one explicit (political) purpose; to stop people dying at sea. The means should never justify the end, particularly when we are discussing the lives of the most vulnerable people in the world and a nation still developing.

We can do better Australia, can’t we?