Yesterday brought an end to the stand-off between Indonesian immigration officials and over a hundred Sri Lankan asylum seekers who have been on a boat at the port of Merak since October.
As The Sydney Morning Herald reports, “as a gallant, if ultimately pointless, six-month stand-off by Sri Lankan asylum seekers at the Indonesian port of Merak drew to a close yesterday, their spokesman, Nimal, began sobbing:
“We don’t know what they are going to do … They are going to take us to detention but they did not give us any guarantee about our resettlement,” Nimal cried. “We are waiting for you, Australia. We are waiting for your response.”
The asylum seekers have been taken to an immigration detention centre at Tanjung Pinang — so how were they convinced to leave?
This kind of resistance worked for the asylum seekers on the Ocean Viking last year, so why didn’t it work this time? Sara Nathan, a Tamil translator who was in Merak in December and January and is in contact with the asylum seekers, spoke to Crikey:
Why did the asylum seekers agree to leave?
They’ve been forced off the boat. They were not told where they were going. They were refused access to legal aid, even though legal aid was willing to assist them. So they were all taken to Tanjung Pinang and they didn’t know until they got there. They weren’t given a choice …
Two weeks ago the immigration officers, the International Organisation for Migration and the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), came and told them, ‘You need to get off the boat and be moved to a detention centre, it will be a nice place and you’ll be given UNHCR access within two days.’ They said, ‘Sounds fine, where are we going?’ And they were told, ‘Don’t ask any questions, don’t talk to anybody else because they’ll make you change your mind. We’ll come back in five days and take you.’ But nothing happened.
Then on the tenth day, yesterday, the immigration officers came and said, ‘Now you have to get off, otherwise we’ll arrest you.’ They said, ‘We need legal aid.’ They were told, ‘They’re not part of the government, they can’t be here.’
Australia apparently paid for the transportation from Merak to Tanjung Pinang. Initially Australia said it’s nothing to do with us. It looks like they want it cleaned up before the election. They’re using refugees as political pawns.
The asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking held out for promises of fast processing. What’s the difference?
The others were on a Malaysian vessel but the Oceanic Viking rescued them. They were on an Australian customs vessel and Australia wanted that vessel back. While they’re on a Customs vessel it wasn’t doing its job, so if you kept it out of work for six months that’s a lot of money. It’s all financial.
When will they be resettled? Are they affected by the freeze on processing?
They were told by the UNHCR that they will be visiting them at the camp and processing their applications within two days of getting to Tanjung Pinang and that process would finish in two months. Within a year they’ll find resettlement.
… We don’t trust anything that’s said. Nothing was given in writing so we’re sceptical. We don’t want them lost in the system. Some of them have been in Indonesia as refugees for 16 years. They’ve been recognised as refugees.
Anybody who arrived in Australia after the 9th of April won’t be processed [for three months]. They haven’t arrived in Australia yet.
What were conditions like on the boat?
It was meant for 50 people but 250 people were cramped in it. There was only one toilet and shower. There were 31 children and 27 women among the 254.
These people paid for their passage and they didn’t get anywhere. They normally pay about $US2000 to get on the boat and then when they reach Australia they have to pay another $US14,000. But the Indonesian authorities have said the boat will be given back to the people smuggler because he owns the boat.
Not all of the asylum seekers originally on the boat remain there. What happened to the others?
They’ve gone to seek their own refuge. There’s 21 already held in detention centres. Eight got off the boat willingly because they were promised not to be put in detention. This was in early November but they only got UN High Commission for Refugees access in February. They’ve been held in detention in a small cell 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without being allowed out, so that didn’t encourage the others for getting off.
Who will arrange their resettlement?
The UNHCR puts them up. It’s up to the country to say ‘I will take x amount of refugees.’ Australia last year only took 39 refugees from Indonesia.
One thing missing from the debate over asylum seekers arriving by boats managed by people smugglers from Indonesia: how did they get to Indonesia? Was it a chain of people smugglers who got them there or do they only kick in once they’ve reached Indonesia and say they want to go to Australia? Was the money they paid inclusive to the end destination? The way it’s ‘reported’ implies that here’s some kind of conspiratorial chain of smugglers – but who are they and where are they based? Surely it’s not being orchestrated by Indonesians (many of whom are former fishermen with leaky boats). It seems odd that we don’t really care how they got to Indonesia. If we knew that we might be able to make a considered judgement on whether they really are being ‘pulled’ here. We could start by asking indonesia but that doesn’t seem to be on the (media) agenda which seems to assume they just got there somehow.
My understanding of people who are seeking asylum is that they are in fear of their lives at up to the border of the point of embarkation from their country of persecuted origin. From this point onwards presumably they are relatively safe, and the choice of Australia as a destination is nothing more than seeking the point of refuge which has the best social security and support benefits.
Whatever Australia’s capacity to absorb refugees is, it is not unlimited and needs to be managed. Every person who pushes their way to the head of the refugee queue with the aid of people smugglers fundamentally has access to the resources necessary to bribe their way through, and pay for their passage to the people smugglers. They are not without some facility to manage their own affairs and the choice of Australia as a destination is deliberate.
Whilst I have the greatest empathy for displaced persons we must draw the line. I’m sure Kevin Rudd always understood this, but he fell foul of his own rhetoric or assumed that he could bluff his way through if the number of people in the refugee queue did not grow too large.
Giving refugees permanent residency is a magnet which will attract a boat people but also would be attractive to visa over stayers who can lay claim to some point of persecution, or potential persecution, if they are returned to their home country . Australia’s compassion and legal system is its own Achilles’ heel.
This weakness is exploited by single issue advocates who are trying to blackmail the majority into submission to their perspective without dealing with with the difficult issue of managing the migrant/refugee queue. I understand there are several million people living in refugee camps around the world and we are limited in their capacity to absorb them. At some point you have to impose limits. Rudd is now doing this for political survival in the meanest possible way. He is suspending refugee applications which means that thousands will be held in limbo nothing more than political expediency so he doesn’t have to admit his policy has failed.
Is interesting to note the observation that people pay $2000 down payment and $14,000 once they arrive in Australia. Who funds the $14,000 per capita in Australia?
You are both ignoring the fact that Australia is now in breach of 3 of its international legal obligations. Refugees, Rights of the Child and Racial discrimination. Hopefully we as a nation will one day be hauled before international courts of justice to face trial on these breaches. you are also ignoring the fact that these refugees are escaping from wars that we ourselves either supported on the ground (Afghanistan, Iraq) or were complicit in through provision of aid, training or propaganda,(Sri Lanka, West Papua) .
Apart from the purely humanitarian issues, Australia is now seen more and more as a country to be feared, both through its unholy alliances with the United States, the worlds leading practitioner of state terrorism, but also through the work of its rabid anti humanitarian media, arguably the least divers in the western world.
In Sri lanka now, today, there are still 100,000 inmates of the concentration camps and as there is no access to international humanitarian organisations, we must assume the worst, further, most of the 140,000 inmates of these camps who have been released are wandering the roads of northern Sri lanka because there is no home left for them to go to. It is not really relevant how much these people have paid for their trip, if they are fleeing for their lives, which they are quite entitled to do, then they have every right to expect that we live up to our legal obligations.
Should we decide not to fight any more American wars, and send teachers, doctors and builders to these countries instead, we might find that there would be fewer refugee situations.
‘Sara Nathan, a Tamil translator who was in Merak in December and January and is in contact with the asylum seekers, spoke to Crikey’ – for responsible journalism, we need to know: was she speaking as a private citizen, or is she employed by/affiliated to some organisation?
I am not casting doubt on her report. Just trying to point out that there is enough spin and dissimulation surrounding this issue, we need to be absolutely sure of our facts and their provenance.
For the record, I have marched, demonstrated, signed petitions etc. I don’t doubt what Sara said, or what she was told.
Refugees who jump queues upset your sense of fair-go? Can’t take their plight seriously given the thousands of dollars they flash to a people smuggler?
Do you buy private health insurance, you shameless whinger?