Stop the Boats Australia Policy against Irregular Boat Arrivals - Case Study Example

Analytical Essay Name Class Unit Introduction The operation sovereign border was started in 2013 by the Australian government. This was due to an increase in number of boats carrying irregular immigrants from different parts of Asia and Indonesia (Wazana, 2004). The operation was in consistent with the election promise of “pushing back the boats”. The policy involves use of Australian officials to prevent entrance of irregular immigrants into Australia territory. In some instances, Australia has returned irregular immigrants into their home country after screening them. The policy is not the first time the government has intercepted irregular immigrants. In 2001, irregular immigrants aboard Tampa were stopped from entering Australia. Irregular immigration has been a major issue in Australia leading to challenge in law and policy (Johnston, Vasey & Markovic, 2009). Between 2008 and 2013 there has been arrival of more than 51 796 asylum seekers. Most of the refugees arrived by boat through facilitation of people smugglers. The number of deaths in sea through these journeys has increased. Through the enacting of “Operation Sovereign Borders” policy, the number of boat arrivals has reduced (McAdam, 2013). Despite the success of the policy, there have been social, economic, moral and political costs. This essay analysis “stop the boats” Australia policy against irregular boat arrivals. Legality of the policy Australia is committed to the rule of law hence any policy passed must be able to undergo legal assessment. The advice given to the government prior to implementing the policy must have been legal accurate. Despite this, the advice will remain obscure to the general public due to national security (Maley, 2003). Australia is not the only developed country seeking to stop illegal immigration. There have been rise in the number of developed countries who have come up with policies to intercept irregular immigrants (Klein, 2015). Over a 20 years period, United States has interdicted over 200,000 individuals (McAdam, 2013). To determine whether Australia violates any international law, it is important to look at the existing laws which may have been used in drafting the policy. Australia, India, Indonesia and Sri-Lanka are signatory to united Nations convention on the law of the sea. Under the law, Australia has rights, obligations and authority on different activities in different maritime zones. Based on the law, it is important to determine the vessel location for the country to determine the rights and obligations it has (Stratton, 2009). In the territorial sea, Australia has authority of 12 nautical miles. This allows Australia to have authority to use and enforce its laws including the migration laws on 12 nautical miles from their coast. This may allow Australia to intercept and arrest any vessel which violates their territorial water. This allows Australia to use necessary actions which may include towing back the vessel (Devetak, 2004). The applicability of this law is great when the vessel is very near Australia coast. The country is also legally allowed to act in its contiguous zone which is up to 24 nautical miles off the coast. This is aimed at preventing infringement to customs and migration laws (Klein, 2015). According to the migrant smuggling protocol which Australia is a signatory, the states are allowed to board and search stateless vessels. This is in case the vessel is suspected of smuggling people (Grewcock, 2013). This is accordance with the domestic and international laws. In case Australia tows back the illegal immigrant to Indonesia, they will be violating Indonesia territorial sovereignty. Australia can therefore rely on the law of sea to justify their actions in interdicting vessels carrying irregular immigrants (Klein, 2015). The country can also act within the contiguous zone if the action of stopping and pushing back the boats are preventive (McKay, Thomas & Kneebone, 2012). Australia is also bound by an obligation to rescue those in distress at sea. The country is also expected to help in promotion of search and rescue through collaboration with neighbouring states (Stratton, 2009). If a vessel is in distress, Australia can proceed to the area and offer assistance to those on board. The fact that those in board are refugees does not matter. This requires Australia to transfer those in board to a seaworthy vessel. The main area of contention is whether placing the immigrant on lifeboats and pushing them away from Australian water is illegal (Klein, 2015). This is due to fact that in most cases, migrants are placed in a sea worthy vessel and taking them away from Australian water (Grewcock, 2013). Anyone who claims to be a refugee is supposed to be assessed. If they meet the definition of a refugee, they are supposed to be given protection. A refugee should not be returned to the place of persecution (Devetak, 2004). It is important to note that the obligations based on the refugee convention apply on the sovereign territory. The states cannot exercise their sovereignty away from their territorial water (Klein, 2015). Success of the policy The stop the boat policy has been very successful. By April 2015, Australia had reduced the migrant boat landing to zero. The number of dead migrant through drowning was also reduced to zero (Crock & Ghezelbash, 2010). This is compared to fact that Australia had 18,000 illegal immigrants in 2013.the country was the eighth largest recipient of migrants among the developed countries. The policy is zero tolerance to the migrants coming into the country illegally. This is due to fact that the policy has acted as a deterrent to the migrants attempting to enter the country illegally. The country has been clear that only legal migrants are welcome (McKay, Thomas & Kneebone, 2012). Australia sent a message to all countries where refugees came from and deterred the migrants while at the same time warning against people traffickers. Australia has also increased their budgetary aid to the migrants host countries (McNevin, 2011). This has been aimed at ensuring that there is secure development which instead of people risking their life to travel to Australia. Through use of royal Australian navy patrol, boats are towed back to the port of origin or taken to the migrant processing centres. If the migrants are found genuine, they are given an opportunity to settle in Papua New Guinea (McKay, Thomas & Kneebone, 2012). Application of the policy In order to stop illegal trafficking of people, the Australian policy offers a great initiative. The policy is capable of deterring the migrants and reduces death from sea. The policy is a great move against people smuggling (Stratton, 2009). The rescue and towing ensures that the migrants are safe and can access basic services. This is a policy that makes it possible to screen the migrants and ensure that they are free from health issues such as Ebola while at same time eliminating security risks (Crock, Saul & Dastyari, 2006). It is important to look at forced migration in a global viewpoint. Australia is not immune to refugees’ influx and hence has to come up with policies. For example, the current events in Syria and other parts of Middle East have made the refugees’ problem even bigger. As security deteriorates in the source countries, more refugees are bound to cross the ocean in boats risking their lives (McKay, Thomas & Kneebone, 2012). The current number of displaced people stands over 51.2 million which is highest number since the world war two. Countries which include Kenya, Pakistan and Lebanon at the moment host four fifths of the world refugees. The number of refugees entering Australia through the sea is low compared to the global refugees’ trend. The industrialised nations bear the lowest burden of asylums as compared to the less developed countries (Hyndman & Mountz, 2008). Migration has been a major contributor to Australia economy. Through skilled migration program, the country was able to attain high levels of growth and prosperity. Since the end of the Second World War, Australia has resettled over 800,000 refugees. Since the beginning of the 20th century and especially after the Second World War, the model of governance used has supported asylum seekers. This is through the refugee convention and the 1967 protocol (McNevin, 2011). Since the Australian Indonesia relationship became constrained on people smuggling matters, Australia has been forced to act alone. The policy has helped in turning away boats which have reached its territorial water (Crock & Ghezelbash, 2010). The country has in some instances been in conflict with Indonesia due to territorial water when implementing the policy. The fact that both the government and opposition shares similar views on asylum seekers makes it hard to reverse the policy. There are minority of Australians who have been opposing the tough migration policies without success (McKay, Thomas & Kneebone, 2012). The security threat posed by the illegal immigrants is a major cause of alarm. With Australia coming up with strong refugees policies, it becomes possible to address country security from illegal immigration (McNevin, 2011). The previous policies had led to creation of new breed of criminals who are the people smugglers. The main problem is the fact that without legal migration options, refugees will use people smugglers. This is due to fact that to some refugees, risky see voyage is less dangerous than being repatriated (Hyndman & Mountz, 2008). Most of the people smugglers are poor fishermen who want to earn money. In one venture, a fisherman smuggling people can be able to earn many months’ salary (Grewcock, 2013). The poor fishermen utilises the opportunity to smuggle people with an aim of gaining the cash. Apart from the fishermen, there are other types of crews who have been involved in the activity due to the cash paid by the refugees. Corruption in Indonesia law enforcement has made it easy for the people smuggling business to thrive. Indonesia government have shown little efforts in passing strict immigration laws to stop people smuggling. In some cases, the Indonesian authority sees the immigration problem as Australian not theirs. In this case, Indonesia is used as the transit country while Australia is the destination country (Crock & Ghezelbash, 2010). The ability of country to manage and control their boarders is very fundamental to their sovereignty. The issue of boat arrivals in Australia has been a very toxic issue. While the sovereignty is vital in Australia, the country has to determine those in genuine need for humanitarian assistance (Crock & Ghezelbash, 2010). The small but increasing numbers of boat arrivals is a major source of intense political debate. The response by the government has been in some cases seen as inhumane and a violation of labour rights (Hyndman & Mountz, 2008). Australia is among the few signatory to the 1951 UN refugee charter and the 1967 protocol in Asia pacific region. This has led to the need for Australia to be committed to protection and support for refugees. The country is expected not to impose penalties irrespective of refugees’ entry or their presence (Grewcock, 2013). While Australia has been providing regional humanitarian assistance through taking in refugees, the number is small compared to the global data. The number of refugees in Australia continues to be lower than the less developed countries. Despite this, the country spends a lot of cash in their security apparatus to deter the irregular immigrants. Despite the efforts to stop the refugees, it is evident that the number of them willing to take risks will increase (Crock, Saul & Dastyari, 2006). As a sovereign nation, Australia has a legal right to determine their migration policy. Despite this, the depiction that refugees are a threat to the national security is being blown out of proportion. The country tough policies on migration threaten to damage its reputation in the region as a humanitarian country. The policy may deny the refugees who are in dire need for humanitarian assistance (McKay, Thomas & Kneebone, 2012). Recommendations If Australia wants to be successful in stopping irregular immigrants, they need to look at the reasons which make them to embark on the dangerous journey. The causes such as war, famine and disasters should be combated. The causes of refugees’ problems are rarely addressed when coming up with the policy (Hanson-Easey & Augoustinos, 2010). Increasing the migration barriers may not be very effective in stopping irregular migrants. There is need for appropriate resettlement and processing options for the refugees. This can be attained by Australian government investing more in refugee processing rather than detention facilities. The country can work with the transit countries which includes Sri Lanka and Middle East. This will make it possible to come up with orderly departure arrangements. The smugglers menace has to be addressed to ensure that the trade is stopped. This is through more cooperation with the refugees’ origin countries, destination and transit. Enforcement and detention are important but they cannot be used alone in reducing boat arrivals. There is need for other measures to address the plight of refugees (McKay, Thomas & Kneebone, 2012). Conclusion Australia policy to stop irregular arrivals has been successful to a great extent. The number of boat arrivals has dropped significantly since the policy was adopted. Operation sovereign boarders have been able to ensure that irregular migration is controlled. Looking at different international law bodies shows that the country can establish some legality of their actions. It is clear that Australia acts within the law in stopping the sea vessels in their territorial water. Despite this, lack of adherence to human rights is a major area of concern. Before turning back the boat, there is need to determine the legality of the refugees and their entitlement to protection. Australia must ensure that their reputation on human rights is not tainted by the policy. The country has a legal obligation to defend their boarders’ sovereignty. Despite this, Australia should address the cause of refugees’ plight through looking at problems causing the inflow. This is through addressing famine, natural disasters and war which are major causes of refugees. There is need for more cooperation with the refugees’ origin country to address their plights. References Crock, M., & Ghezelbash, D. 2010. “Do loose lips bring ships? The role of policy, politics and human rights in managing unauthorised boat arrivals.” Griffith Law Review, Vol.19, no.2, p.238-287. Crock, M., Saul, B., & Dastyari, A. 2006. Future seekers II: Refugees and irregular migration in Australia (Vol. 2). Federation Press. Devetak, R. 2004. “In fear of refugees: The politics of border protection in Australia.” The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol.8, no.1, p.101-109. Grewcock, M. 2013. “Australia’s ongoing border wars.” Race & Class, Vol.54, no.3, p.10-32. Hanson-Easey, S., & Augoustinos, M. 2010. “Out of Africa: Accounting for refugee policy and the language of causal attribution.” Discourse & Society, Vol.21, no.3, p.295-323. Hyndman, J., & Mountz, A. 2008. “Another Brick in the Wall? Neo‐Refoulement and the Externalization of Asylum by Australia and Europe1.” Government and Opposition, Vol.43, no.2, p.249-269. Johnston, V., Vasey, K., & Markovic, M. 2009. “Social policies and refugee resettlement: Iraqis in Australia.” Critical Social Policy, Vol.29, no.2, p.191-215. Klein, N. 2015, “Assessing Australia’s Push Back the Boats Policy under International Law: Legality and Accountability for Maritime Interceptions Of Irregular Migrants,” Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol.15, no1, p.1-22. Maley, W. 2003. “Asylum-seekers in Australia's international relations.” Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol.57, no.1, p.187-202. McAdam, J. 2013. “Australia and asylum seekers.” International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol.25, no.3, p.435-448. McKay, F. H., Thomas, S. L., & Kneebone, S. 2012. “‘It would be okay if they came through the proper channels’: Community perceptions and attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia.” Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.25, no.1, p.113-133. McNevin, A. 2011. Contesting citizenship: Irregular migrants and new frontiers of the political. Columbia University Press. Stratton, J. 2009. “Uncertain lives: migration, the border and neoliberalism in Australia.” Social Identities, Vol.15, no.5, p.677-692. Wazana, R. 2004. “Fear and loathing down under: Australian refugee policy and the national imagination.” Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees, Vol.22, no.1.p.231 Read More