Humanity denied

The `new boat people' are seen as a `threat' to Australian society by the Government, says Amit Baruah.

MR. JOHN HOWARD must permanently remain in the debt of the 450- odd refugees who sailed to Papua New Guinea on the Norwegian freighter, ``Tampa,'' after New Zealand and Nauru agreed to end the stand-off at Christmas Island. The Afghan (and a sprinkling of Sri Lankan) refugees were just what the doctor ordered for the Australian Prime Minister's sinking political fortunes in an election year. By refusing to allow the refugees to land on Christmas Island, Mr. Howard showed that sacrificing humanitarian principles can lead to better ratings.

Two polls conducted in the wake of the ``Tampa'' affair have shown that 77 per cent of all Australians support the decision not to allow the refugees in and that the Liberal coalition has inched closer to Labour in terms of support. In an election year, ``keeping them out'' can be a powerful statement. Humanitarian principles or morality, clearly, do not count for much in the Australian Government's lexicon.

For, first and foremost, the ``Tampa'' affair is all about the wretched of the earth. Afghanistan, the world's lost nation, the plaything of superpowers, is now producing refugees at an alarming rate who dare to try and land in one of the world's richest countries to escape persecution and absolute lack of opportunity.

These ``rich'' refugees, according to refugee-bashers in Australia, are able to pay ``enormous'' amounts of money to ``people- smugglers'' and traverse through several countries before landing in Australia. (There have been some suggestions that they fill their bellies at McDonalds in Indonesia before setting sail for Australia in leaky, life- threatening boats).

It is clearly not about rules and regulations. It is about understanding the plight of other people. But, when you want to outdo the right-wing One Nation party in garnering votes, then Afghans and other nationalities must be made the scapegoat.

As much of the world celebrates globalisation and the new opportunities created, the movement of people is certainly not one of them. Trade barriers are being removed, skilled labour is moving like any other product, but the developed world has erected solid walls to keep the poor, unskilled out of their countries.

In the case of the ``Tampa'', the Australian position is a violation of the 1951 U.N. Convention on Refugees, according to groups such as Amnesty International. These ``new boat people'' are seen as a ``threat'' to Australian society as a whole by the Government.

Individual Australians have taken umbrage at their Government's decision to keep the refugees out. Many have written angry letters to newspapers. One couple offered their farm to house the ``Tampa'' refugees. Some liberal-minded Australians have taken their Government to court, which is still to decide on the fate of the refugees.Norway, which has been in the thick of the ``Tampa'' controversy, has severely criticised Australia for how it has dealt with this humanitarian tragedy. But Australia, it would appear, does not heed counsel when it comes to its own internal, domestic affairs.

But Canberra, of course, has the right to lecture Jakarta on how to deal with Aceh and Irian Jaya, having already played crusader in East Timor. It can lecture India (very softly these days in the times of an Indo-U.S. thawing) on the need to sign the CTBT and the NPT.

The time has come for poor countries to raise the issue of how Australia has treated the refugees on the ``Tampa'' as well as the policy of mandatory detention that Canberra follows towards asylum seekers. Afghan and Iraqi refugees have no Governments to speak for them; other nations, too, are unwilling to speak up for any of their ``citizens''. That certainly suits countries like Australia.

The Australian press regularly carries reports of attempted suicides in detention centres; of teenagers on hunger strike. Are all these the qualifications that lead to the conferment of developed country status? Developing countries must opt out of such a race.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Keeping out the other