Security and Human Rights - Essay Example

SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS Course Title Instructor’s Name Date It is inappropriate that in big, rich and cultural diverse nation such as Australia, maltreatment of asylum seekers is an international preoccupation. For many years, there have been international concerns regarding the Australian government in handling asylum seekers particularly from the surrounding war-torn Muslim countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria and Sri Lanka. As in many countries, migrants and asylum seekers are an easy target for fears about national security and unemployment. Politicians have ignited fears that they are a threat to the integrity of Australian borders and also to the national fabric. Apparently, any governments priority to guarantee security for its people (McAdam, 2013). However, a critical focus on the Australian policies targeting migrants and asylum seekers tempts one to conclude that the policies are not genuinely aimed at protection of the country but are centered on keeping migrants and asylum seekers off the Australian community (McAdam, 2013). The policies are harsh, inhumane and repugnant to the human rights and international law. This paper takes position against the Australian actions against migrants and asylum seekers particularly Muslims. It presents evidence of the inconsistencies of these Acts with human rights and the international law and gives recommendations to the UN concerning these acts Australian Policies on Asylum Seekers In 2001, unfortunate events, particularly the September 11 attack on the United States allowed the government to exploit public fears and create a rhetorical and eventually legislative divide between the rights of the so referred to as genuine refugees, resettled in Australia from camps abroad by the offshore humanitarian program and those arriving in Australia spontaneously, ordinarily by boat, described as “queue jumpers”, “illegals” and “unauthorized arrivals”. The labor government had laid the foundation of these laws. In 1992, the labor government created a policy of compulsory detention. Initially, the policy was aimed at being an exceptional measure for wave of Indochinese boat people majorly from Cambodia but was expanded to all unlawful non-citizens for administrative efficiency. The then Immigration minister categorically sent a message that migration to Australia would not simply be achieved by arriving in the country and expecting to be permitted into the community. Ever since then, leaders have played up the concept of the good refugee who waits in a camp for resettlement and the bad refugee who jumps the line by arriving by boat (McAdam, 2013). International law does not distinguish between a “good “and a ‘bad refugee”. An individual either has genuine fear of persecution or does not. Usually, there are no camps for people to arrive safely and where there are, there is no assurance for resettlement. In actual sense, less than one percent of refugees are resettled in a year (Silove, et al., 2003). A refugee’s probability of resettlement is not dependent on the duration he or she has been in the camp but on factors such as vulnerability, aptness for resettlement, countries Australia views to be priorities and the opinions of individuals and organizations in Australia taken during community consultations with the Immigration minister and Borger protection minister (Gerner, 2010). The international law has no provision that require an immigrant to seek refuge in the first country they arrive in. Looking at the countries in Australia’s neighborhood and the travel routes taken by the asylum seekers , it is obvious that those coming from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iraq cannot seek protection in a nation that has ratified the Refugee convention unless and until they arrive in Australia (Refugeecouncil.org.au, 2014). The human rights watch asked Iraq and Afghan Asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by sea why they did not stay in the in the country they reached first. The refugees significantly cited lack of legal framework to assure them protection in those countries. Likewise, Somali refugees said that protection entailed much more than simply getting safety from the instant threat that caused them to run away. Rather, protection meant finding a country where they could reconstruct their lives; safeguard their extensive needs and work to restore normality (ONeill, 2008). The harsh policies adopted by the Australian government are, therefore, inconsiderate on the predicament of the refugees that makes them stop in Australia and not any other country on the way. There is no crime in seeking asylum from persecution and other serious human rights violations with or without travel documents. It is a right provided to anyone by the international law and the concept of “queue jumper” or “illegal” does not hold. The Refugee convention restricts countries from imposing penalties on asylum seekers entering without a visa or passport. This is because those who drafted the convention appreciated the fact that the nature of refugees predicament makes it impossible to acquire travel documents. Asylum seekers cannot apply for travel documents before leaving their countries because by definition; refugees must be outside their country (Pickering, 2001; Silove, et al., 2006). Even if they happen to cross the border, Australia embassies cannot give protection visas to those on the road such as people running away from Afghanistan. In addition, it is unlikely that refugees will succeed in obtaining visa of any kind such as work or tourist visa. For instance, an Iraqi refugee who applies for visa to Australian embassy is likely to be denied the visa because of the presumption that he/she will seek asylum on arriving in Australia (Humanrightsactionplan.org.au, 2011). Australian government sets a quota of 13,750 refugee places per annum. Commonly, 6000 resettlement places are reserved for refugees from overseas who are recognized by the UNHCR as having need for protection. This number is not at all affected by the number of asylum seekers who spontaneously arrive in Australia. There are 7,750 resettlement places in Australia’s special humanitarian program. These resettlements are reserved for human right entrants (individuals who are at substantial risk of discrimination tantamount to violation of human rights in their homeland, such as women). In the past, many refugees have exploited this channel to bring in members of the family left behind. However, the larger the numbers of refugees coming to Australia, by boat and plane, the fewer places remain for humanitarian asylum seekers overseas. This is the basis of the “queue jumper (McAdam, 2013). Australia is the only nation that handles asylum seekers in this manner. This dual system is a creation of the Australian government and is not founded on anything in the refugee convention which privileges those who arrive on boat through non-refoulement principle. The latter provides that no refugee or asylum seeker will be forced back to the country where they at risk of being persecuted (McAdam, 2013). Further, it is erroneous to argue that boat immigrants take up places reserved for overseas refugees. This is because the onshore number is associated with the special humanitarian quota and not the refugee quota (although many would qualify as refugees as well), and because refugees who come to Australia by plane affect the number in a similar way as those who come on boat. In addition, as the refugee council of Australia observes, the government creates a conflict between the offshore and onshore applicants by using a system in which onshore asylum seekers are viewed as taking places that should be used for resettling family members (Magner, 2004). When the labor government assumed power in 2007, it dismantled most the initiatives deemed unreasonable regarding asylum seekers. However, the government gradually reintroduced these initiatives. Initially, it appeared to do so with a humanitarian motive, changing the rhetoric from stopping the boats to saving lives in the ocean. Eventually, though, it adopted most of the same inhumane policies as the Howard rule, regardless of the many assurances it made that it would never duplicate them because of their inhumane effects and illegality (McAdam, 2013). In 2012, the government reintroduced the Howard’s unpopular pacific solution when it opened processing centers in PNG and Nauru. The idea was that the poor conditions of the two places were devoid of legal advice and assessment mechanisms and delayed resettlement would discourage the refugees from getting on boats. But it failed because; mostly it overlooked the reasons that drive people to seeking protection in the first instant. So, the government went a notch higher in July 2013 announcing that asylum seekers coming on boats would now be transferred to PNG for processing and resettlement. They would not, whatsoever, be resettled in Australia (Healey, 2013). On September 2013, Tony Abbot came to power. His government started implementing the draconian policies under a military-led policy christened “Operation Sovereign Borders” The policy came into effect immediately after swearing-in of the new government. Two weeks later, the Immigration and Citizenship department was renamed the Citizenship and Border Protection department. In launching the operation, the government argued that the country is facing a border protection crisis and that the crisis is a national emergency, and subsequently a military operation was needed. The entire move is malicious because the claim that Australia is in a border protection crisis has no truth in it. As the former chief of Australia defense force put it, the policy is a misguided one, because asylum seekers are not enemies to the Australia, since they are not in attack mission. (Whyte, 2014). In another scheme to avoid the responsibility of accommodating asylum seekers, the Australian government in 2013, said that it would expand offshore processing and find other resettlement nations for those verified to be refugees. The government, however, introduced temporary protection visas (TPVs) another deterrent to asylum seekers. The implication is that any refugee reaches Australia by boat and is resettled in Australia as a the last option as well as well as those refugees on boat already in Australia waiting the evaluation of the claim, will only qualify for temporary protection (McAdam, 2013). The temporary protections visas mean that no refugee who arrives by boat will ever be settle permanently in Australia or bring in their families. Their status will need to be reviewed every few years. Once again, no other nation uses temporary protection in this manner (Humpage, and Marston, 2006). There is evidence of the damaging effects of TPVs. The asylum seekers, particularly Muslims from countries within Australia’s vicinity, are left in the middle of nowhere. They can’t go back to their homelands because they risk persecution, and they can’t construct a life in Australia since they fear being returned to the hell in their countries when the temporary visas expire. A study revealed that the holders of TPVs surpass permanent protection visa holders in all dimensions of mental disability and psychiatric disturbances. The first introduction of TPVs saw many women and children attempt to reach Australia on boats to join their husbands. Many died in the sea (Momartin et al., 2006). According to Human Right Law Center, Australian standards on prevention of torture and cruel treatment are too way down the scale. In a detailed report, a union of non-governmental organizations has evaluated the Australian history against the United Nations Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, which the country signed up in 1985.The report that is approved by organizations such as Save the Children, People with disabilities in Australia and the Refugee Council of Australia finds that in aggregate, Australia’s standards are sharply declining. Australia has failed in several areas to ensure people do not suffer cruel treatment while in other areas the government has been directly responsible (Hrlc.org.au, 2014; Silove, McIntosh and Becker, 2004). It is inexcusable for a country of Australia’s caliber to fail to eliminate all forms of human torture and cruel treatment. The report is more categorical on the government practices and policies in a broad range of areas such as refugee law and policy. The government pronounced willingness to return asylum seekers to the danger inherent in their home countries is one area where the Australia n government has conclusively failed short its responsibilities under the UN convention (Refugeecouncil.org.au, 2014). The Australia’s perpetual violation of UN conventions and human rights are explicated by its recent “turning back the boats’ policy implementation. The policy is another element of Operation Sovereign borders. The policy allows the government to send back asylum on boats to their country of origin when it is safe to do so. Its common knowledge that it will rarely be legal, or safe to do so because the act risks the lives of those on board these usually unseaworthy vessels. Past experience shows that turning back boats is a very dangerous course. Under the Howard rule, one boat was turned back. The boat reportedly sailed for twelve hours towards Indonesia before it ran ashore, about 400 meters from an Island. Three people died trying to reach the shore. Several other boats sank killing the people on board. In addition, a report presented to the Australian parliament in 1979 showed that between 50-70% of people fleeing at the height of the Vietnam War drowned. (Smh.com.au, 2014). In addition, refugees may be sent back to persecution and other harms. A good example is an instance where 41 asylum seekers (Muslims) were sent back to Sri-Lanka, a nation where the government continues to persecute Tamils including through sexual violence and torture, according UNHCR, Amnesty International and US State Department. Then there is the unpopular saga where 157 asylum seekers were kept on a floating Australian prison in the ocean to ensure that the government does not falter in its record of stopping boats (Hrlc.org.au, 2014). With its anti-asylum seekers policies, particularly the stop a boat policy, Australia is also agitating other nations. Indonesia has strongly opposed the turning back of boats policy. The policy solves the political problem of Australia but dumps the problem to other countries because the people smugglers will find other countries to send their clients (Theguardian.com, 2014). The Australian government has genuine responsibility of controlling smuggling of people into its territories but in so doing, it is punishing genuine refugees who turn it for help that the country has offered by being a signatory to the refugee convention. The policy which is directed at keeping off asylum seekers is shocking in its extent and cruelty. What the policy has achieved best is degrading humanity and in some cases destroying lives (ABC News, 2014). Australia should discourage dangerous sea journeys, but it should also give alternative to genuine refugees. During the Vietnam War, refugees were given alternatives. Australia partnered with other China, USA and Canada to make an agreement under which each country accommodated significant numbers of Vietnamese. The current other most recent Australian regimes have been unable to duplicate such an arrangement despite the same sense of crisis of refugees mostly from the surrounding Muslim countries. Instead, the governments have chosen other policies such as turn back boats and compulsory detention. (Refugeeadvocacynetwork.org, 2012). In the recent perpetration mistreatment of asylum seekers, Abbott government signaled to cut legal aid assistance for asylum seekers arriving by boat (ABC News, 2014).Legal aid assistance is important for guarantee of fairness and efficiency in the justice system and is based on the rule of law. The government has also advanced to eliminate appeal rights to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The latter is an independent body that assesses the government officials’ decisions on whether a person is a refugee or not. The motivation behind government efforts is that in the recent years, RRT has found that individuals are refugees but, when the government officials have asserted they are not. The repercussion of this move is that the government will decide life or death fate of a refugee without a chance for review (Rutland and Encel, 2009). Australia continues to implement its mandatory detention policy of 1994.This policy has sparked outrage from human rights groups. Recent visit of the Human Rights Commission to Christmas Island found that people were living in desperation in detention camps with no hope for their futures having to bear mental health scars for the rest of their lives. A case of a prolonged detention of a six-year-old girl suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder in immigration detention center on this Island further shows the brutality of the compulsory detention policy (Dudley, n.d.). On August 2013, the UN Human rights released a shocking report finding about 150 gross violation of international law by Australia’s handling of refugees. The case was about forty-six asylum-seekers who were being held in indefinite detention because of adverse security reviews by Australia’s Security Agency (ASIO). They were all found to qualify as refugees with genuine fear of persecution, and none of them was refused protection on the ground of the International refugee law rejections for persons suspected to have committed serious crimes. Surprisingly ASIO could not say what the asylum seekers were alleged to have done (Healey, 2013).Viewing the conditions of the detention, this arbitrary and indefinite detention is unlawful, cruel, inhuman and degrading (Preston, n.d.). FRONTEX EU against Migrant Wave from Senegal and Mauritania The Australian "send back boats" policy resonates with EU, external border agency (Frontex) border surveillance and interception of immigrants from Mauritania, Senegal and Cape Verde’s territorial waters. The agency operation involves use of blockade by which immigrants are forbidden further passage to the Canary Islands from where they enter Europe (Frontex, 2014). Contrary to the Australian policy, which jeopardizes its relations with neighboring countries and which has been discredited for its lack of humanity, the EU policy seems to have good will for the immigrants(or perhaps made to appear so) as well as being consistent with the international Laws. Firstly, most people migrating from Senegal and Mauritania to Europe do so in pursuit of better lives and not necessarily because of fear of persecution as in the case of Afghans, Syrians and Sri Lankas Tamils fleeing from pronounced persecution in their countries. As such, they are not refugees under human rights bodies (Spijkers, 2007). Secondly, the Frontex operation is carried out with authorization and cooperation with Mauritania and Senegalese authorities unlike the Australian policy which has put it at loggerheads with Indonesia. Any suspected boat with immigrants is intercepted and sent back to African Ports. The director of Frontex claims that the operation has succeeded in preventing illegal immigration and reducing loss of human lives at sea in the course of the dangerous voyage. However, it is yet to be substantiated whether the operation is a humanitarian success because this form of border control does not differentiate between refugees and other immigrants, potentially violating international refugee rights. When asked about the case of genuine asylum seekers who might adversely be affected by the operation, the director in an Austrian paper, the directed responded that such as a problem is non-existent. However, this response is highly unreliable (Leonard, 2010). Pursuant to the international and European Law, many concerns can be raised about control of borders and interception of vessels. International refugee law requires that all claims of asylum should be thoroughly scrutinized .It is not sufficient to point at an immigrant in a boat and claiming” You are not a refugee." In addition, Schengen border code states that all people who denied entry at the EU borders are entitled to the right of appeal. However, because the actual interception is conducted by African authorities (paid by Spain and EU). Frontex asserts that provisions of this border code are not applicable (Leonard, 2010). This program could also be faulted that it is in conflict with the fundamental right that ever person shall be free to leave any country, including own country, as assured by, among others the Universal declaration of human rights. In essence, the EU Frontex migrant’s interdiction program is faulty just as Australians return a boat since the former assumes that no genuine refugees try to cross to Europe from Africa (Baldaccini, 2010). Recommendations to the UN The most important long-term remedy that UN should endeavor to achieve is to ensure that no people flee their countries for fear of their security. It no easy task, but the UN can use its power to pursue this long-term goal. In an ideal world, there shouldnt be refugees in the first place and consequently, the issue of Australia and its inhumane anti-asylum seekers policies would not arise (Gerner, 2010).The crisis in countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sri-Lanka’s persecution of Tamils must be stopped. Because this world is not ideal and refugee crisis is already here with us, it is time the UN took stern actions against Australia. It cannot be emphasized more that all Australian policies regarding migrants and asylum seekers violate the international human rights obligations in a way or the other. They undermine the whole humanitarian purpose of the Refugee convention, and the concrete obligations Australia has according to the international laws (Brennan, n.d.). Just like the immigration minister in Fraser government told the cabinet that policies such as offshore processing, turn boats, temporary protection visas and Australian detention centers would be tantamount to wooing international pariah (ABC News, 2014), it is time the UN and the international community treated Australia as a pariah nation and impose serious sanction on individuals in the government and the government itself. If UN supports sanctions on Russia, North Korea, and Zimbabwe for issues incidental to violation of international conventions, then Australia should not be accorded special treatment. Bibliography ABC News, 2014. Boat turnbacks make harsh deterrents pointless. [Online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-25/steketee-boat-turnbacks-make-harsh-deterrents-pointless/5621950 [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. ABC News, 2014. Tony Abbott incorrect on asylum seekers breaking Australian law. [Online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-24/tony-abbott-incorrect-on-asylum-seekers-breaking-australian-law/5214802 [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. Baldaccini, A., 2010. Extraterritorial border controls in the EU: The role of FRONTEX in operations at sea. Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal Challenges, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp.229--255. Brennan, F., n.d.. Tampering with asylum. Dudley, M. n.d. Suicide in Australian Immigration Detention Centers. Zhongguo Xinli Weisheng Xiehui. Frontex, 2014. Frontex | European Union Agency. [Online] Frontex.europa.eu. Available at: http://frontex.europa.eu/ [Accessed 22 Oct. 2014]. Gerner, K., 2010. The Australian immigration debate. South Yarra, Vic.: Macmillan Library. Healey, J., 2013. Asylum seekers and immigration detention. Thirroul: The Spinney Press. Hrlc.org.au, 2014. Torture and cruel treatment: 77 organisations slam Australia’s declining standards | Human Rights Law Centre. [Online] Available at: http://hrlc.org.au/catreport/ [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. Humanrightsactionplan.org.au, 2011. Refugees and asylum seekers. [Online] Available at: http://www.humanrightsactionplan.org.au/nhrap/focus-area/refugees-and-asylum-seekers [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. Humpage, L. and Marston, G., 2006. Recognition, Respect and Rights: Refugees Living on Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) in Australia. The Situated Politics of Belonging, 55, p.113. L\eonard, S., 2010. EU border security and migration into the European Union: FRONTEX and securitisation through practices. European Security, 19(2), pp.231--254. Magner, T., 2004. A less than ‘Pacific’solution for asylum seekers in Australia. International Journal of Refugee Law, 16(1), pp.53--90. McAdam, J. (2013). Australia and Asylum Seekers. International Journal of Refugee Law, [online] 25(3), pp.435-448. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eet044 [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. Momartin, S., Steel, Z., Coello, M., Aroche, J., Silove, D. and Brooks, R., 2006. A comparison of the mental health of refugees with temporary versus permanent protection visas. Medical Journal of Australia, 185(7), p.357. ONeill, M., 2008. Blind conscience. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Pickering, S., 2001. Common sense and original deviancy: News discourses and asylum seekers in Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 14(2), pp.169--186. Preston, N., n.d.. An ethical analysis of Australian policies in development partnership and immigration restriction. Ann Arbor, Mich: University Microfilms. Refugeeaction.org, 2014. Refugee Action Committee. [Online] Available at: http://refugeeaction.org/ [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. Refugeeadvocacynetwork.org, 2012. High Court Decision Opens Possibility of Deportations to Danger - Refugee Advocacy Network. [Online] Available at: http://refugeeadvocacynetwork.org/high-court-decision-opens-possibility-of-deportations-to-danger/ [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. Refugeecouncil.org.au, 2014. Refugee Council of Australia. [Online] Available at: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/rhp-time.php [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. Rutland, S. and Encel, S., 2009. No room at the inn: American responses to Australian immigration policies, 1946--54. Patterns of Prejudice, 43(5), pp.497--518. Silove, D., McIntosh, P. and Becker, R., 2004. Risk of retraumatisation of asylum-seekers in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 27(4), pp.606--612. Silove, D., Steel, Z., Susljik, I., Frommer, N., Loneragan, C., Brooks, R., le Touze, D., Manicavasagar, V., Ceollo, M., Smith, M. and others, 2006. Torture, mental health status and the outcomes of refugee applications among recently arrived asylum seekers in Australia. International journal of migration, health and social care, 2(1), pp.4--14. Silove, D., Steel, Z., McGorry, P. and Drobny, J., 2003. Problems Tamil asylum seekers encounter in accessing health and welfare services in Australia. Social Science \& Medicine, 49(7), pp.951--956. Smh.com.au, 2014. Federal Politics - smh.com.au. [Online] Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/un-representatives-criticise-abbott-governments-boat-towback-policy-20140423-zqxz1. [Accessed 22 Oct. 2014]. Spijkers, O., 2007. Operation Hera III | Invisible College Blog. [Online] Invisiblecollege.weblog.leidenuniv.nl. Available at: http://invisiblecollege.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/2007/04/21/operation-hera-iii/ [Accessed 21 Oct. 2014]. Theguardian.com, 2014. Australian immigration and asylum | Australia news | The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/australian-immigration-and-asylum [Accessed 22 Oct. 2014]. Whyte, S., 2014. Scott Morrison proposes releasing asylum seekers onto Australian mainland under TPV plan. [Online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scott-morrison-proposes-releasing-asylum-seekers-onto-australian-mainland-under-tpv-plan-20140910-10eznj.html [Accessed 22 Oct. 2014]. Read More