The Plight of Children Seeking Asylum in Australia - Term Paper Example

Between the Devil and the Deep Sea The Plight of Children Seeking Asylum in Australia Executive Summary: Religious, territorial and political conflicts around the world force people to seek asylum in other countries. Children are the worst affected in such events. Australia with its stringent immigration laws has been a poor shelter-giver for asylum seekers. The political ill-will and indifference have made it the least refugee populated developed nation. Despite Australia being a party to the UNHCR –Convention of the Rights of the Child laws, evidences from the past as well as the present show its poor compliance and insincerity towards the welfare of refugee children. This report examines the plight of children and their suffering at the indifferent and unsympathetic hands of the Australian government authorities. Introduction The evolution of the human race over a million years has hardly been a smooth one. Wars have always tilted the rights of people, changed power equations and/or help consolidate controls. Religion, life-styles, languages, cultures, political ideologies, histories, physical differences of skin-colour, race, natural resources, geography, power and wealth are some of the differentiating factors. Conflicts violate basic human values and leave a trail of sorrow and despair in their way, often pushing the children, the aged and the poor in to deeper poverty and misery. Many people/communities are forced to attempt to escape total annihilation by either fleeing the conflict zones either individually or en masse, to regions or countries they consider safe, seeking shelter for the family and children, and protection from their suffering. But, are they right in taking their children along with them and exposing them to the doubtful future ahead? Are they successful in ensuring a safe and secure passage for their families and children? Contrary to their hopes, worst conditions prevail for these children who are forced to witness the violence and destruction around them, too shocked and miserable even to respond to the circumstances that surround them. The next few pages shall particularly discuss the plight of children among the boat asylum-seekers in Australia. Children are the subject of intense hardships and uncertainties during their long detention periods as are adults, in their wait for acceptance from the host country. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits such detentions in the interests of the mental and physical health of such children. This article shall cite UN newspaper reports and data from UN reports as proof of human rights violations against children, and seek a more sympathetic and humane treatment of above said, by Australia. Asylum-Seekers or ‘Irregular, Illegal Immigrants’ Australia follows stringent immigration laws, to start with, in order to protect its borders and people from terrorist attacks, especially after the WTO 9/11 attacks in the USA. Subsequently, both the ruling and the opposition parties in Australia have been unanimous in enforcing stricter immigration laws; the reflection of government policies is evident in the treatment of asylum-seekers into the country. The basic perspective of the political parties appear to be one of apprehension and doubt, rather than understanding and sympathy, and successive governments, both coalition and Labour, have always portrayed asylum-seekers in negative light, as has been evident in the Norwegian freighter - MV Tampa incident (Tate, 2010, pp. 45-7), wherein asylum-seekers are tagged as ‘illegal’ or ‘irregular’ immigrants, “queue jumpers” (Refugee council of Australia, 2014) and the boats that shipped such people were accused of ‘people smuggling’. Furthermore, any Australian citizen would be able to recollect the false propagation that was perpetrated by those in power when SIEV 4 (Suspected Illegal entry Vessel) -The Olong was sunk. Linda Tenenbaum (2002) describes clearly how the then government ministers, under the guidance of Howard's People Smuggling Taskforce (PST) that comprised of important defense personnel and key public servants were instrumental in spreading false news about refugees throwing away their children overboard from boats, endangering their lives in a bid to force the Australian navy patrol ships to rescue the children and take them ashore (Appendix 1). They published photos of children floating in the waters purportedly as proof; however, all this was proved false, and the photos were of the rescue operations carried out by HMAS Adelaide and grateful refugees (Tenenbaum 2002, cited in safecom.org.au, 2014). The un-understanding stand of the political parties towards asylum-seekers has been highly criticized by Australians. A comparison of the number of asylum-seekers to other developed nations to that of Australia shows huge differences. For example, as per the UN high commission for refugees (UNHCR), the number of refugees in the country totals to 30,083, which in relation to its physical size, places it among the countries with lowest refugee rates in the industrialized nations, despite discounting the uninhabitable regions of the country (the guardian 2013). While the United States of America has the highest percentage of refugees – 17%, with Germany following it -13%, Australia takes only 3% of the world’s refugees (Appendix 2). However, it should be said that this figure of three percent is a commendable improvement shown in the year 2012, as compared to the previous record of 1% (the guardian 2013). The asylum-seekers who solicit entry into Australia are divided into two categories: refugees who arrived by boat, described as "irregular maritime arrivals" (IMA), and those who arrived by air (described as non-IMA). In the year 2011-12, for the first time since 2002 (Appendix 3), the number of IMA asylum-seekers exceeded the non-IMA with a total of 7,379 people (Department of Immigration and Citizenship cited in the guardian, 2013). Most of the debates and controversies centre around the IMA as has been highlighted in above cited examples. As the direct consequence of the elections in Australia, early in the year 2002, freezing the applications from asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, further worsened the situation leading to protests and strikes of extreme nature by the refugees. UNHCR – CRC and its Australian Chapter It is needless to add that the conditions prevailing for the safety and welfare of the children among the asylum-seekers were even worse. Children refers to all those who are below 18 years. In fact, the UNHCR Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Article 1 gives the following definition, “Under the CRC, a child means every human being below 18 years of age unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Children’s Right Report 2013, p. 13). However, the government of Australia, it appears from the ‘children overboard’ affair (2002) referred to earlier, was more interested in utilizing the presence of children in among the refugees and manipulating the same to slander the image of asylum-seekers than in protecting the interests of those children in the real sense, of taking care of their needs. The refugees were turned to third country islands like Christmas Islands, Nauru and Manus islands and placed along with the children in cramped detention centres, from time to time, with no information or hope of legal formalities to validate their refugee status. Further evidence to this end can be seen in a report given by none other than the personal envoy of UN Human Rights Commissioner Mr. Bhagwati, who visited Australian immigration detention facility centres in 2002, in order to release the UN Report on Mandatory Detention Centres in Australia. The report vividly argued that Australia’s policy was against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibited arbitrary detention. Furthermore, children in the detention various centres being denied access to legal review of incarceration, was totally against the CRC. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, actually prohibits the very detention of children itself, and allows it only as a last resort. Mr. Bhagwati’s report pointed to the mental and physical suffering of children, and that many were “traumatised and led to harm themselves in utter despair.” (Refugee Council of Australia, 2014) However, the government denied charges and criticized the report. Children Trapped in a Legal Maze When people flee their troubled home countries, the immediate families become the targets of anger and torture in the hands of the state or the terrorists; this prompts many people to take their families including children, along with them, as was the case of Iraqi refugees of 2001-2 and the Indonesians thereafter. Admittedly, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission Immigration Detention Statistics report (2014) as on January 31, 2014, there were 1,006 children of 5,867 asylum-seekers in detention facilities and 1,631 children of 3,391 in community detention centres in Australia; this means that approximately 17% of the detainees in the facilities and 48% of detainees in the community centres are children. About 1,749 Bridging visas had been issued to children who arrived as asylum seekers in boats, while their plea for refuge was being scrutinized by the Australian government. The sorry state of affairs in the detention centres have been well recorded in the long history of suffering by refugees. Another inquiry and investigation procedure that followed the aftermath of the ‘children overboard’ episode detailed the unfair treatment and poor record of human rights can be found in the report, A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (2004). A few points from the same are worth mentioning here as a pointer to the suffering of children in detention centres of Australia. Nearly 14 per cent of the children who sought asylum came alone (unaccompanied children). As on September 1, 2001 there were about 842 children in Australia's immigration detention centres. During the period 1999-2003, majority of the children in the detention centres were from Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan; nearly 98% of the Iraqis, 95% of the Iranian, and 74% of the Afghani children who applied for asylum from detention centres were recognised as refugees and released into the Australian community with Temporary Protection Visas –TPV (A Last Resort, 2004). While on paper the issuance of temporary protection visas appear to be fair, in reality, it hardly offers the children any protection at all. Measures like a) the immigrations minister holding the right to keep the children in this status for up to three years before considering permanent visa for them; b) these children with TPV not being allowed to travel outside the country prevented them from meeting or reuniting with their families; c) and such long periods of detention clearly broke the CRC laws. The report (2004) further states that the Australian government’s failure to protect the rights of asylum-seeking children was evident even in laying the framework for the management of immigration detention centres, which will then become the guideline to adequately discharge its responsibilities to children in immigration detention. Discrepancies showed up in the services delivered to the children in the detention centres and what was required as per the CRC norms. Since the contract between the department and ACM (the private company delivering services) only partially included the rights which the Commonwealth owed to children in immigration detention, even complete compliance with contract, still left a lot to be desired; however, the monitoring systems of department authorities during the period (1999) were uninterested in plugging the gaps and rectifying the loop-holes. For example, while it was not compulsory for the ACM staff to do the supervision of the children at the detention centres; however, the children still were required to be under the supervision of a concerned authority like the school principal or the foster care-giver; even this was not followed. Only severe demonstrations of protest like a hunger strike, and extreme steps like lip-sewing, suicide pact forced the authorities to display some action in the matter. In January 2002, the authorities finally made arrangements to transfer some unaccompanied children to home-based foster care detention centre in Adelaide (A Last Resort, 2004). This is a good example of the unwillingness and indifference displayed towards the mental, physical, emotional and intellectual well-being of the asylum-seeking children and goes directly against the principles of the CRC norms. Condition of Child Refugees in Recent Times It is of serious concern to note that mind-sets have hardly changed in the past decade or more; while industrialized Australia takes every measure to ensure that its children are well looked-after, it doesn’t even care to ensure that the asylum-seeking children in its backyard, Nauru islands are even safe from predating animals. Oliver Laughland (2014) reports in the guardian dated May 15, 2014, that a “Girl aged 11 dies on Nauru beach after being attacked by stray dogs”. The news article states that the death posed serious questions regarding the safety of the island for asylum seekers housed there. There are about 190 refuge seekers who have been detained there and stray dogs were a major problem there. Reports of the stray dog problem came to light even last year when a few Salvation Army staff reported attack when they were returning to a local hotel from their work in detention centre. The concern shown by the authorities in tackling the stray-dog problem can be understood with this latest episode of the girl-child being attacked and killed by dogs; instead of taking concrete measures like neutralizing the stray dogs, the staff were advised to take a stick for self-protection. The current incident came to light after her father found her on a beach in the Yaren district of the island and brings to the spotlight the pathetic state of unchanged attitudes of the authorities in the government with regards to the human rights and treatment of refugee children. Pertinent here is the report of Graeme McGregor (2014) of the Amnesty International, on the plight of asylum-seekers. Entitled “Asylum-seekers: No way in, No way out” in the report dated April 28, 2014, McGregor narrates how the Government of Nauru even refused Amnesty International permission to visit its asylum-seeker detention centre and also explains the hopeless state of affairs for the refugees in the detention centre there. Explaining that the centre which was closed in the year 2007 was reopened in the year 2012 and that there were about 1,179 refugees currently detained in the refugee detention centre. This figure included men, women and children. Though Amnesty International had been able to visit the detention centre in the 2012, this time the government officials posed themselves to be too pre-occupied to grant the human rights organization access to the centre. This was not new, however, and the governments of Nauru, Papua New Guinea (PNG) as well as Australia, have resisted attempts by the public, newspaper journalists, advocates and global human rights bodies with an interest to make public the quality of living of the detainees in the offshore detention centres. This is the consequence of the violent events that erupted on February 17, 2014, on Manus Island, resulting in a death. In its bid to desist visitors to the detention centres, the Nauru government also increased the charges for journalists’ visit visa from $200 to $8,000; the government also has blocked the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, access to the detention facility. Amnesty International has also now been denied permission, states McGregor (2014) and without permission, it is difficult to ascertain the exact happenings inside the detention centre. There was no way to confirm the degree of veracity of the reports of the pathetic conditions there, he deplores. Inadequate water supply, bad healthcare, prevalence of diseases like dengue, malaria, and even residual unexploded bombs of the forgotten WWII are reportedly leaked out as information. Human Rights Issue of Child Refugees Most important of all and related to this report here are the unconfirmed reports of child-abuse by the security staff in the detention centre. This raises important questions regarding the sincerity of the governments and the authorities in adhering to the CRC articles 37(a) and 39 which are as follows: “not be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” recovery and reintegration when a victim of neglect, exploitation or abuse, (Article 37(a) ) torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.   (CRC 2012, p.13) The very fact that 1) the governments are reluctant to share information with the public, 2) prefer to keep the reports of the inquiry on Manus Island and 3) resist transparent reporting of the happenings in Nauru islands, fuel speculation and curiosity to know the truth behind the events. Amnesty International (2014) also points to how lack of sympathy and understanding of their apathy have been deliberately designed to force asylum seekers to go back to the countries of their origin, despite the danger of persecution and discrimination they were likely to face there. This has been carried out through a series of humiliating behaviour on an everyday basis bordering on cruelty and deprivation. This is the consistently the impression gained by anyone following the pleas of asylum-seekers to the Australian government and the responses of the latter to the sufferings of fellow-human beings in need. This report suggests that the concerned government authorities need to seriously rethink their basics and look for more humane solutions with sincerity in thought and openness in approach. Conclusion Australia has always followed stringent immigration rules and laws. However, political unrest and wars and conflicts in the name of political ideologies, race, religion and revenge/retaliation, have become more frequent, leading to large scale displacement of people from their homelands. These people come from all over the world and seek refuge in countries like Australia. However, the scant respect for Human Rights, poor sympathy and labelling of refugees as ‘queue jumpers’, rigid immigration laws and inhuman turning back of asylum-seekers in Australia has led to it being one of the least preferred destinations. Despite the fact that Australia has had to shelter only 4% of global asylum-seekers, the attitude and approach of the subsequent governments have been far from satisfactory. Children and child refugees are the most adversely affected and reports point to serious lapses in their safety and security measures. The UNHCR reports and warnings from human rights organizations like Amnesty International to adhere to CRC laws agreed to by Australia have hardly caused a change in the Australian governmental policies. Inaction of authorities to improve the condition of the detention centres in Manus, Nauru and Christmas islands, has lead to deaths, protests and repeated tension filled violence. Repressive measures like blocking the press, media and human rights organizations visits or the reports of the inquiry shall only increase the speculation and fears of apprehension. Only serious reversal of attitudes and strong, clear demonstration of fair and just treatment of the asylum-seekers will enable Australia assuage its collective conscious of having been humane. Appendix 1: (Source: http://www.safecom.org.au/kids-overboard.htm) The photos .NOTE 13 October 2003: After repeated attempts to contact the owner ofwww.truthoverboard.com we added the photographs from this website as well. This website has been in existence since about April 2002, and reportedly it is owned by the National Labor Party Secretariat. low_in_the_water.jpg further_down.jpg I_cant_swim.jpg nearly_under.jpg past_the_point_of_ no_return.jpg sinking_fast.jpg almost_all.jpg bow_underwater.jpg nosedive.jpg going_down.jpg swimming.jpg swimming_for_life.jpg laura_the_hero.jpg half_under.jpg crowded_liferaft.jpg liferafts3.jpg half-under.jpg dont-try-this-at-home.jpg dogs-and-his-family.jpg liferafts2.jpg liferafts4.jpg I-left-my-bag-behind.jpg liferafts.jpg liferafts.jpg cheesy-grin.jpg happy-kids.jpg hair.jpg pink-baby.jpg girl-and-milk.jpg little-kids.jpg Source: http://www.safecom.org.au/kids-overboard.htm Appendix 2: (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers) Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers Appendix 3: (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers) Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers Appendix 4: (source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers) Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers) References: A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (2004). By Sev Ozdowsk for Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Australia. Available at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/human_rights/children_detent ion_report/report/PDF/alr_complete.pdf Children’s Right Report (2013) By Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved on May 20, 2014. Available at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/ChildrenRights Report2013.pdf CRC Report (Convention on the Rights of the Child) UNHCR (2005). Available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/45377eac0.html Immigration detention statistics (2014) Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved on May 20, 2014. Available at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/immigration-detention-statistics Laughland, Oliver (2014) “Girl aged 11 dies on Nauru beach after being attacked by stray dogs” the guardian dated May 15, 2014. Article available online at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/15/girl-dies-nauru-attacked-stray-dogs McGregor, Graeme (2014) “Asylum-seekers: No way in, No way out” in web site Amnesty International. Available at http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/34426/ Refugee council of Australia (2014) “Timeline of major events in the history of Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program” Retrieved on May 20, 2014. Available at http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/rhp-time.php Tate, N.P (2003) “People smuggling: Defending Australia’s national interest” in Geddes Papers Retrieved on May 20, 2014. Available at http://www.defence.gov.au/ADC/docs/publications2010/PublcnsGeddes2003_300310_P eopleSmuggling.pdf Tenenbaum, Linda (2002) “Naval Guns trained at The Olong” in The Unthrown Kids Online article, retrieved on May 20, 2014. Available at http://www.safecom.org.au/kids-overboard.htm the guardian (2013) “Australia and asylum seekers: the key facts you need to know” by Simon Rogers, July 2, 2013. Online article, retrieved on May 20, 2014. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers Read More