Amnesty International responds to Oceanic Viking developments
In relation to developments in the negotiations between the Australian Government and the Sri Lankan asylum seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking, including the disembarkation of 22 people from that vessel, Dr Graham Thom, Refugee Coordinator for Amnesty International Australia said:
“While Amnesty International supports positive outcomes for all 78 asylum seekers who have spent weeks on the Oceanic Viking, including permanent resettlement for those who are found to be refugees, the organisation has significant concerns with the ad hoc manner in which the matter is being treated.
“Amnesty International still believes that Australia, as a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees, should have brought all 78 asylum seekers to Australia for processing. Although the individuals were rescued in international waters, Australia, as a signatory country, has an international obligation to offer protection to people fleeing persecution. Once these people boarded the Oceanic Viking they came under Australian control, and as such are Australia’s responsibility.
“Australia currently has two programs for accepting refugees - the onshore program, under which asylum seekers are processed in Australian territory by the Department of Immigration, and the offshore program, under which refugees are referred by UNHCR to Australia for permanent resettlement.
“The question must be asked as to what message the current situation is sending about Australia’s onshore and offshore programs. The programs serve separate purposes and should not be confused.
“The UNHCR in Indonesia, as in other countries, recommends refugees for resettlement according to their own independent assessment as to who has the greatest need for this form of protection. This program is not interchangeable with the international obligations Australia has to offer asylum to refugees under our onshore program.
“The asylum seekers on board the Oceanic Viking, as well as those who have already disembarked, should always have been processed in Australia under the onshore program.
“Amnesty International maintains its opposition to the policy of excision. The organisation believes that, in order for Australia to meet its international obligations, all people who seek asylum in Australia should be brought to the mainland to have their claims assessed. As a matter of priority, the Government should immediately remove all children and families from the island and house them appropriately on the mainland.”
Comments
Norman Hunter | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:36PM | Report comment
Andrew JS makes some good points about the obligations of search and rescue missions to deliver people to the nearest safe port.
However, the case becomes anything but “simple” when you know the rescued people are asylum seekers. Any Indonesian port looks less than “safe” when they are not signatories to the Convention and there is constant talk there of repatriating Sri Lankans to the very country they claim to have a “well-founded fear” of.
The Australian government (which owned the ship) could easily have brought them to Christmas Island, a demonstrably safe port and possibly the closest. Hardly anyone would have noticed, but now the entire world has witnessed their bungled attempt to look tough.
If they’d brought them to Australia without any fuss and posturing in the first place, the Department could have done its job in properly assessing their claims.
Anything less means Australia is happy to make risky life-and-death decisions on the run.
James Fehon | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:31PM | Report comment
Comment 54, is responding to 49, which in turn was a response to Alex’s figures.
James Fehon | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:28PM | Report comment
The Rudd Government’s policy changes: removing temporary protection visas, getting kids out of detention, moving away from the ‘pacific solution’ were all improvements, and I think corrected what a majority of the population saw as unacceptable.
Variation in the number of refugees can not be linked to domestic policy, it’s instead closely linked to push factors (wars, persecution, insecurity). How naive, almost heartless it is to think treating asylum seekers badly is saving their lives.
If you disagree, have a read of this analyses of the numbers first: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/19/push-vs-pull-asylum-seeker-numbers-and-statistics/
A harsh approach does not decrease numbers, we have an obligation to provide asylum in any case.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:23PM | Report comment
James Fehon, comment 54, Who and which figures are you referring to?
Peter Edwards | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:21PM | Report comment
James Fehon—- I don’t believe that the majority of Australians disagree with a reasonable immigration programme, including asylum seekers. The problems arise when stupid mistakes are made and then not rectified by the politicians who make them, as Rudd has not.
The previous government’s policy was working, had stopped the boats and therefore saved lives, and they actually increased the numbers of refugees we took and the policy was supported by 80% of Australians, so where has Rudd giot it wrong do you think?
James Fehon | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:15PM | Report comment
Peter your assertion that people who work day to day with the Immigration department have their figures wrong holds no ground. Don’t attack individuals credibility if you’ve no evidence, or actual point to make.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:12PM | Report comment
Marilyn Wow, I really don’t know where you get some of the garbage you keep prattling on with here?
Australia actually accepts the second, that’s right, the second highest number of asylum seekers per capita than any other country in the entire world.
For god’s sake, if you are going to quote numbers or statistics, do yourself a favour and at least get them right. Oh and by the way, Oceanic Viking is Australian soil?????? and praytell, how did Australia break the law?
James Fehon | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:11PM | Report comment
Peter, the Refugee Convention serves a very important function to this day. No mainstream political party in Australia would deny that.
That you’ve just brandished all asylum seekers as free loaders, not deserving of humanitarian assistance is appalling, the comment taken as a whole bordering on racist.
The vast majority of Australians support our state having a refugee program on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Have a think about where you’re leaving this comment, and maybe incorporate some of that sentiment into your thinking on the issue.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:05PM | Report comment
Marilyn, The convention actually came into being in 1951, 58 years ago which was to help solve the problems of the homeless from a world war, not to help freeloaders out for a lifestyle better than they have in their homeland. Also, if there was ever a signal that something has outlived it’s usefulness, it’s the fact that the refugee convention is 58 years old.
Australia should review it’s need to stay with an outdated convention that makes it very easy to be abused, as we are seing daily and Australia is under no obligation whatsoever to stick with any agreement that has proven to be working against Australia’s best interests.
James Fehon | Posted on 23 November 2009, 06:05PM | Report comment
There’s a difference between a simple search and rescue, and our additional obligations where people are seeking asylum.
Yes it’s because of a search and rescue operation that they have come under Australian control, the article recognises this, but the group is not what’s dictating where the vessel should be taking them, it’s our obligations under the Refugee convention to NOT hand over people seeking asylum to a country which will not respect their rights. Australian politicians should recognise this – Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and their treatment of refugee’s on occasion includes refoulement (sending them back to the persecution / insecurity they’ve fled).
The law of the sea mandates that the closest available ship provide assistance - that should remain as it is. Both these international obligations are on principle of compassion and assisting those in dire need, the talk of ‘high jacking’ ignores that we’re in the privileged position.
Peter Edwards | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:58PM | Report comment
Alex Page—- I don’t know where you get your figures but you are so wrong. Take the time to contact the Immigration dep’t as I did and get the correct numbers and you might just be surprised, but I somehow doubt you would admit that you are wrong.
As I have said earlier, threats that may have existed for Tamil Tigers no longer exist so all they should do is get their act together and help to rebuild their country, oh sorry, I forgot, it’s the welfare in Australia isn’t it.
Andrew J S | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:46PM | Report comment
James
It is absolutely essential that people being rescued at sea get taken to the nearest safe port - you cannot allow any group to dictate where a vessel takes you. If the oceanic viking were to be forced by Asylum seekers to go to christmas island it would mean future calls for ships in areas outside Australias search and rescue areas would receive no response - is this what AI wants? It began as a simple search and rescue mission - this is all a search and rescue should do - it should get drawn into a debate on refugee rights etc. considered as part of a rescue mission
Norman Hunter | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:43PM | Report comment
Is this a private shouting match, or can anyone join? Parts of this discussion are pretty unedifying. Take a look back, David and Marilyn, then both take a look in the mirror.
David: how does your request for Marilyn to “communicate without abusive name-calling and putting down those who you don’t agree with” square with your “bed-wetting, lip-biting, hankie-sucking lefties” outburst? Isn’t that, to use your words, just a tad “childish and immature”?
Marilyn: “some can’t read”, “perpetually whining” and “now can we stop the bollocks” are hardly going to win any hearts, are they?
I’m just joe blow public, but if I were the moderator of this forum I’d have shut you both down for abuse.
Marilyn, cut the abuse and your facts might be more persuasive. David, try including some substantiated facts to replace the generalisations, urban myths and proof by specific instance. Currently you’re both just using megaphones to shout at each other.
Calm down, both of you.
James Fehon | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:37PM | Report comment
On whether we should’ve brought the asylum seekers to have their claims processed here: Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and sending the 78 asylum seekers rescued by the Oceanic Viking there was a purely political decision (and a misguided one at that). As Amnesty points out, we have two programs for accepting refugees – the onshore program, for those who by whatever means claim asylum at our doorstep (which is protected under the convention), and offshore intake, which accepts refugees processed by the UNHCR, often after long delays in often just as insecure temporary refugee camps. Trying to shift a group of people on to the offshore intake by diverting to Indonesia when they’ve made it clear they are seeking asylum and have been picked up by an Australian customs ship sends a concerning message, these peoples lives and claims are being treated in an ad hoc manner – is this about political gain, or people lives?
James Fehon | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:36PM | Report comment
The war certainly is continuing in Afghanistan (maybe suggestions that people can’t read should be replaced with that they haven’t been). Whether the individuals on the Oceanic Viking are legitimate refugees is determined by the Department of Immigration, through their assessment of asylum seeker claims; I wonder why a number of those on board have already been accepted when a few people here are asserting they’ve nothing to be fleeing – lets let the Department do its job!
Andrew J S | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:32PM | Report comment
Marilyn
If you beleive an Austrlain ship to be ‘Australian soil’, then you must also beleive the tampa was Norwegian Soil - do you think the Tampa had an obligation to take the ‘Known Asylum seekers’ to Norway? Its the same perverted logic you and AI are using now to say the oceanic viking should have returned to Australia.
David Ready | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:32PM | Report comment
Marilyn;
“Now get over it”. There you go again. You just can’t help yourself being dismissive and nasty and immature in your comments can you? Does it make you feel “better” or more “superior” in your attempts in putting others, and their views, down? You must really have an inadequate personality.
Of course we should detain illegal immigrants until their identify can be proved. These people destroy all their travel documents, documents which they had when they flew in Indonesia or Malaysia in their attempt to get as close to Australia as possible.
Even those “white” tourists, with documents, who get turned around at the border, for whatever reason, are detained until they get flown out again. And you can hardly call being detained on Christmas Island with all their taxpayer funded goodies, “locked up”.
Andrew J S | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:25PM | Report comment
Marilyn
What law did Australia break when it sent a ship, at indonesias request, to perform a search and rescue mission in international waters inside indonesia’s search and rescue zone?
And yes it is piracy to effectively take over a ship and demand to be taken where you want - imagine being in an accident and then refusing to get out of the ambulance till it takes you where you want to go - its ridiculous behaviour and this is why the Tamils have lost support.
And I can assure you that Asylum seekers get free Dental as part of their stay, whether they are deported or not - if you think thats fair then so be it however that is the way it is. Serco fly medical personell to and from the island, as well as detainees to Perth from time to time as they did when the Asylum seekers injured themselves when they had their temper tantrums and held a riot - again all at taxpayer expense.
Marilyn | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:14PM | Report comment
There is one dentist on Christmas Island, that is all.
Now get over it.
And of course the point is we should not lock up refugee claimants in the first place.
Marilyn | Posted on 23 November 2009, 05:13PM | Report comment
The damn ship was not hijacked, Australia broke the law.
There is no law in the world that allowed Australia to boot known refugees off Australian “soil” to have them locked up in a foreign country.
The refugees were quite within their legal rights to exist.
As for the existing program, how many of you know what it is?
It is a sick joke. Karen Burmese safe in a third country for 25 years, we only accept .01% of them and call ourselves kind.
Refugees aren’t migrants but we treat them as if they are and it is a $250 million per year sick joke.