David Blunkett to ABC Television in Australia on Friday:
"We always wished that we had a Christmas Island because it would have made it (processing) simpler and easier to deal with. Processing claims offshore makes sense because asylum seekers do not have the same access to appeal mechanisms as those who make it to the mainland."
"If you can do it (process claims) elsewhere, you can then return people more easily to their country of origin. It would have avoided a situation ... where they could prolong their claims and counter-claims for months, in some cases years."
For those of you who do not know about Christmas Island, it is 50 sq km of Australian territory 2,600 km north west of Perth, but only 500 km south of Jakarta. It has long been a landing zone for migrants intent on reaching Australian territory and applying for asylum. However, in 2001 it was excised from Australia's 'migration zone', the terriroty where it was neccesary for a non-citizen to hold a visa in order to legally enter and remain. Thus asylum seekers on the island have no right to apply for a visa or recourse to the Australian courts. They may however apply for UNHCR refugee status.
Thus Christmas Island, together with other excised territories such as Papua New Guinea and Nauru and Manus Islands, were able to be used for the rapid processing and easy exclusion of unwanted asylum seekers. It also allowed successive governments to portray the 'boat people', even though they remain a small minority of Australia's asylum seekers, as asylum bogeymen and women.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Friday, 13 November 2009
Oceanic Viking Update
The 3 way stand off between the Australian and Indonesian governments and the 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers on board the MV Oceanic Viking that has been going on for almost a month appears to be slowly drawing to an end.
The Tamils were rescued by the Australian Navy in the Sunda Strait on 18 October trying to sail from Indonesia to Australia. A deal was struck between the 2 governments for the Tamils to be returned to Indonesian territory and they were transferred to the Oceanic Viking for the journey. But they have stood off the Indonesian coast for almost 4 weeks, with the Indonesian military describing the Australian ship's presence as "disadvantaging" their sovereignty.
The Tamils meanwhile refused to be sent to Indonesian detention centres and have been on hunger strike and threatened suicide to back up their refusal at various points. For their part the Australian government have tried hard to persuade the Tamils to disembark (keeping their customs vessel at sea all this time is costing a lot of tax dollars) by continuing to claim that "discussions not yet finalised" as to where the refugees would ultimately go. The Indonesians however have claimed all along that they must go into Tanjung Pinang, the Australian-funded detention centre on Bintan in the Riau Islands.
To add to the confusion, New Zealand recently entered the fray, when Green Party MP Keith Locke urged the New Zealand Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman to help break the deadlock by taking some of the refugees, as happened during the MV Tampa saga in 2001. Apparently some informal discussions between the 2 governments were forthcoming but the New Zealand government didn't want to set a precedent and "encourage queue jumpers".*
Now 22** of the 78 asylum seekers have agreed to leave the Oceanic Viking and have been taken to the Tanjung Pinang detention centre following a breakthrough deal. This deal appears to involve expediting the Tamil's asylum claims within 3 months, rather than the 6 months it would normally take on Christmas Island, together with other benefits such as English language classes and financial assistance. In return the asylum seekers agreed to leave the Oceanic Viking and go to the detention centre on Bintan. Needless to say the other 56 Tamils are wary of the Australian promises and still appear to need to be persuaded to accept the deal.
Meanwhile, the even longer running stand off in Merak harbour also continues. There have also been negotiation taking place around the fate of these asylum seekers. However, the Indonesian government are still refusing to allow the Tamils to meet UNHCR representatives*** until they leave the Jaya Lestari 5. The Merak harbour Tamils have also been using the hunger strike tactic, with the latest involving 10 of the women amongst the 250-odd passengers having just been called off following a meeting with the Indonesian Human Rights Commission representatives.
* Coincidentally 6 Sri Lankan men intercepted by the Australian Navy and now being held on Christmas Island are staging a protest in the Island's 'red block', a small fenced off area with metal cells that is used for punishment and control purposes.
** It is not known if any of these are among the 30 or so Tamils that already have UNHCR refugee status.
*** It is understood that nearly half of this group of Tamils already have UNHCR refugee status or have documents stating that their refugee assessment is in its final stages.
The Tamils were rescued by the Australian Navy in the Sunda Strait on 18 October trying to sail from Indonesia to Australia. A deal was struck between the 2 governments for the Tamils to be returned to Indonesian territory and they were transferred to the Oceanic Viking for the journey. But they have stood off the Indonesian coast for almost 4 weeks, with the Indonesian military describing the Australian ship's presence as "disadvantaging" their sovereignty.
The Tamils meanwhile refused to be sent to Indonesian detention centres and have been on hunger strike and threatened suicide to back up their refusal at various points. For their part the Australian government have tried hard to persuade the Tamils to disembark (keeping their customs vessel at sea all this time is costing a lot of tax dollars) by continuing to claim that "discussions not yet finalised" as to where the refugees would ultimately go. The Indonesians however have claimed all along that they must go into Tanjung Pinang, the Australian-funded detention centre on Bintan in the Riau Islands.
To add to the confusion, New Zealand recently entered the fray, when Green Party MP Keith Locke urged the New Zealand Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman to help break the deadlock by taking some of the refugees, as happened during the MV Tampa saga in 2001. Apparently some informal discussions between the 2 governments were forthcoming but the New Zealand government didn't want to set a precedent and "encourage queue jumpers".*
Now 22** of the 78 asylum seekers have agreed to leave the Oceanic Viking and have been taken to the Tanjung Pinang detention centre following a breakthrough deal. This deal appears to involve expediting the Tamil's asylum claims within 3 months, rather than the 6 months it would normally take on Christmas Island, together with other benefits such as English language classes and financial assistance. In return the asylum seekers agreed to leave the Oceanic Viking and go to the detention centre on Bintan. Needless to say the other 56 Tamils are wary of the Australian promises and still appear to need to be persuaded to accept the deal.
Meanwhile, the even longer running stand off in Merak harbour also continues. There have also been negotiation taking place around the fate of these asylum seekers. However, the Indonesian government are still refusing to allow the Tamils to meet UNHCR representatives*** until they leave the Jaya Lestari 5. The Merak harbour Tamils have also been using the hunger strike tactic, with the latest involving 10 of the women amongst the 250-odd passengers having just been called off following a meeting with the Indonesian Human Rights Commission representatives.
* Coincidentally 6 Sri Lankan men intercepted by the Australian Navy and now being held on Christmas Island are staging a protest in the Island's 'red block', a small fenced off area with metal cells that is used for punishment and control purposes.
** It is not known if any of these are among the 30 or so Tamils that already have UNHCR refugee status.
*** It is understood that nearly half of this group of Tamils already have UNHCR refugee status or have documents stating that their refugee assessment is in its final stages.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Humanitarian Aid Effort Today In Northern France
Since the end of summer there has been a mounting humanitarian crisis in the North of France. The 'Jungles', migrants camps and squats are all being destroyed; migrants in Paris are banned from sleeping in the parks overnight; migrants are constantly suffering routine harassment, being arrested and having their property destroyed, only to be dumped back on the streets with no shelter or money and only the clothes on their backs. Hundreds find themselves living in the greatest destitution, homeless, without food and depending entirely humanitarian aid.
So, with the approach of winter humanitarian associations and activists have decided that they will hold a simultaneous collective distribution of survival equipment for about 500 migrants today at 14:00 hrs in both cities. The equipment will consist mainly of basic necessities: plastic sheets, jackets, backpacks, jerry cans for carrying water, hygiene kits, sleeping bags and clothing. It is hoped that by doing this en masse and in a very public manner that this might prevent the police from destroying this equipment as part of the French government's on-going campaign of harassment against the migrants this winter.
The groups involved include Médecins du Monde, Médecins Sans Frontières, Terre d'Errance, Salam, C'Sur, Collectif de Soutien des Exilés du 10ème, Calais Migrant Solidarity and No Borders.
So, with the approach of winter humanitarian associations and activists have decided that they will hold a simultaneous collective distribution of survival equipment for about 500 migrants today at 14:00 hrs in both cities. The equipment will consist mainly of basic necessities: plastic sheets, jackets, backpacks, jerry cans for carrying water, hygiene kits, sleeping bags and clothing. It is hoped that by doing this en masse and in a very public manner that this might prevent the police from destroying this equipment as part of the French government's on-going campaign of harassment against the migrants this winter.
The groups involved include Médecins du Monde, Médecins Sans Frontières, Terre d'Errance, Salam, C'Sur, Collectif de Soutien des Exilés du 10ème, Calais Migrant Solidarity and No Borders.
Monday, 9 November 2009
Forced Returns To Zimbabwe Suspended Again
Just days after the Home Office announced that it now considered Zimbabwe safe enough to resume forced deportations and that it was to offer an enhanced version of its Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) package for Zimbabweans, the UK Borders Agency has apparently quietly suspended scheduled deportation flights following strong protestations from the MCD-UK.
The standard AVR package is administered by the International Organisation for Migration and consists of £4,000 for vocational training, assistance in setting up a business and the cost of a flight home. Since February the package for Zimbabweans has been supplemented with an extra £2,000 of reintegration assistance, made up of £500 cash on departure, an extra £1,000 ‘in kind’ assistance for business set-up, a £500 basic subsistence package and cholera prevention kits. The new plans replace the £1,000 ‘in kind’ assistance with a phased series of cash payments over 6 months.
Those who refuse to accept these 'voluntary' packages of course are forcibly returned with no 'assistance' at all. Now the MDC's chief representative in London, Jonathan Chawora, has persuaded the UK government that the situation in Zimbabwe is not as stable as they had claimed and that "the situation is not yet ideal for any Zimbabwean to be deported because of the renewed surge in violence perpetrated by ZANU PF." The situation will be reviewed in January 2010.
The standard AVR package is administered by the International Organisation for Migration and consists of £4,000 for vocational training, assistance in setting up a business and the cost of a flight home. Since February the package for Zimbabweans has been supplemented with an extra £2,000 of reintegration assistance, made up of £500 cash on departure, an extra £1,000 ‘in kind’ assistance for business set-up, a £500 basic subsistence package and cholera prevention kits. The new plans replace the £1,000 ‘in kind’ assistance with a phased series of cash payments over 6 months.
Those who refuse to accept these 'voluntary' packages of course are forcibly returned with no 'assistance' at all. Now the MDC's chief representative in London, Jonathan Chawora, has persuaded the UK government that the situation in Zimbabwe is not as stable as they had claimed and that "the situation is not yet ideal for any Zimbabwean to be deported because of the renewed surge in violence perpetrated by ZANU PF." The situation will be reviewed in January 2010.
What Rational Debate?
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, wants a rational debate about migration. What real chance is there of that when the default setting is that migration is a problem. Full stop. And that it is only a question of how few damned foreigners 'we' let in the country.
Of course he has only come to this conclusion because he thinks that the Labour Party faces meltdown at the next election because of mass defections of previously 'loyal' so-called white working class Labour voters to the BNP. Really he has only got himself and his avowedly racist party to blame. The Labour Party has long played the race card, slamming foreigners (especially 'foreign' prisoners) and 'illegal immigrants' whenever it suited them.
However, their playing of this 'trump card' has been even less sophisticated (or maladroit as Johnson puts it) than the BNP's. In their drive to occupy the (right of) middle ground (read: bottom of the heap or lowest common denominator) as the New Labour project, to try and be all things to all men (& the odd woman), they have ended up appealing to none; and in the meantime they have abandoned their core constituency.
In doing this they have taken on the language, and sought to occupy the battlegrounds, of middle England (read: The Sun). 'Tough on crime and tough on the cause of crime' and all those other hackneyed New Labour sound bites. Needless to say, one key battleground has been immigration, though thankfully their racism has never been as naked as The Sun's (remember the 'SWAN BAKE: Asylum seekers steal the Queen’s birds for barbecues' story from 2003?).
So of course New Labour have "shied away" from the debate about immigration, participating in it would show up the poverty of their position (the Emperor's new clothes) and just how much they have taken on the reactionary position of rags like the Mail and Telegraph. Even if Johnson were to stand up and argue that "immigration has been a good thing for this country – culturally, socially and certainly economically", no one would really believe him as he has left it 12 years too late.
Of course he has only come to this conclusion because he thinks that the Labour Party faces meltdown at the next election because of mass defections of previously 'loyal' so-called white working class Labour voters to the BNP. Really he has only got himself and his avowedly racist party to blame. The Labour Party has long played the race card, slamming foreigners (especially 'foreign' prisoners) and 'illegal immigrants' whenever it suited them.
However, their playing of this 'trump card' has been even less sophisticated (or maladroit as Johnson puts it) than the BNP's. In their drive to occupy the (right of) middle ground (read: bottom of the heap or lowest common denominator) as the New Labour project, to try and be all things to all men (& the odd woman), they have ended up appealing to none; and in the meantime they have abandoned their core constituency.
In doing this they have taken on the language, and sought to occupy the battlegrounds, of middle England (read: The Sun). 'Tough on crime and tough on the cause of crime' and all those other hackneyed New Labour sound bites. Needless to say, one key battleground has been immigration, though thankfully their racism has never been as naked as The Sun's (remember the 'SWAN BAKE: Asylum seekers steal the Queen’s birds for barbecues' story from 2003?).
So of course New Labour have "shied away" from the debate about immigration, participating in it would show up the poverty of their position (the Emperor's new clothes) and just how much they have taken on the reactionary position of rags like the Mail and Telegraph. Even if Johnson were to stand up and argue that "immigration has been a good thing for this country – culturally, socially and certainly economically", no one would really believe him as he has left it 12 years too late.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Thoughts On Woolas' Weasel Words
Having reflected on the weasel words of Phil Woolas overnight, and having looked at the available UNHCR statistics for asylum applications of Afghans in 38 out of the 44 industrialised countries*, we can see that there was a steady but accelerating rise in numbers till a peak in 2001. After that there is a rapid drop down to 2005, when the numbers start to rise year on year. [Graph 1 & 2: See below]
This pattern is mirrored by the UK asylum statistics, but with something of a time-lag. This can be explained simply by the time it takes to travel (6-12 months) by land from Afghanistan to the UK. [Graph 3 & 4: See below]
Now, we all know that the Afghan War began on 7 October 2001 and at first glance it would appear that this provides some circumstantial support for Woolas' 'thesis'. However, the Afghan situation is much more complicated that say that of Iraq or Somalia, current conflicts that have been subjected to extensive study and statistical analysis.
Normally the pattern for population movements during a large-scale armed conflict, is for an increase in numbers of externally displaced peoples. This is the norm for conflicts on the African landmass. In Afghanistan, however, the opposite appears to have occurred, with numbers falling rapidly during 'Operation Enduring Freedom', the first phase of the war. So why could that be?
Firstly, this hi-tech form of war is very different to those that regularly occur in the Horn of Africa for example. The amount of ordinance used and the lack of combatants on the ground initially would have led to a different sort of conflict. Estimates for the numbers of civilians killed in Afghanistan vary greatly but conservation numbers appear to show that at least 4,200-4,500 were killed by mid-January 2002 as a result of the U.S. war and air-strikes, with some claiming up to 20,000 Afghans dying as a consequence of the first four months of U.S. air-strikes. In the first 2 years estimates for direct and indirect civilian deaths range between 6,300 - 23,600, with the total from 2001 to the present from 12,460 - 32,057. This is as part of a population estimated to be 26,813,057 in July 2001 and currently 28,150,000.
Secondly, the major part of the conflict was fought in the much more densely populated East of the country, where the population can and do freely cross the border into Pakistan. As we have seen in the recent Pakistan army operations, large scale population movements readily occur across state/regional boundaries and these most certainly do not lead to asylum applications. If you are hopeful that Western involvement in your country will lead to societal improvements, surely you would take the short trip to relative safety in neighbouring countries rather than travel halfway across the world? On top of this Iran effectively closed its border with the country in the run up to the War and kept it closed, cutting off the main smuggling route to the West.
So initially it would appear reasonable that the numbers of asylum seekers making to the industrial countries would show a dramatic decrease. It would probably stay that way for a while with a multi-national occupying force in the country offering the potential of economic and developmental aid and employment. And who would be the people most likely to remain? Those who would probably be most likely to seek a life in the West. Those who could speak one of the myriad of languages of the occupiers.
In the meantime, the Taliban has become more and more active as the local population have come to realise that the Knights in camouflaged armour have not turned out to be quiet what they claimed they would be. Increased insurgency, the inability to protect the people that put their lives on the line to work with the UN and NATO** and the lack of real developmental progress, coupled with widespread political corruption has led many people to consider a long and perilous and expensive journey to uncertain life in a country they know next to nothing about as the better option when compared to what their life in Afghanistan is and might become.
So why has the recent increase in numbers of asylum seekers been relatively small when compared to pre-war levels. The simple answer is that it is so much more difficult, not only to make it to your country of choice and make an asylum application, but also to have that application accepted. The walls of Fortress Europe for example have become more fortified and refugees are being much more readily deported if they manage to scale those ramparts. Britain for example carries out weekly deportation flights to Kabul, and this at a time when the UN has cut its international staff in the country by more than a half because of the deteriorating security situation.
So there is some anecdotal evidence that the correlation between the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan and the levels of Afghan refugees. Yet Woolas appears to be claiming that the government has something a bit more substantial than mere anecdotal evidence. Yet any scientist knows that real evidence must be able to be subjected to statistical analysis and one needs a 'control' for that. We have data for asylum application rates for before the war and during the occupation, but that is it. For a control, we need a country almost exactly the same economically and socially as Afghanistan but that wasn't invaded and occupied by the US and it allies, not of course forgetting a Taliban-style 'insurgency'. One that could provide meaningful data that could then be compared to what has happened in Afghanistan to show what would happen if NATO pulled out. Or even such a country that had recently been subjected to such a war and occupation and had been evacuated of troops. Know of an example of a country like either one of those Phil? We thought not.
So in the end it looks like your evidence is not worth the empty fag packet its scribbled on the back of.
* The sample base used by the UNHCR for their statistical analyses.
** Interpreters have been particularly badly treated. After having survived years of the Taliban, where a knowledge of a foreign language could quiet easily get you killed, they are often now in daily fear for their lives as many fail to meet the stringent resettlement criteria of NATO and the UN.
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3
Graph 4
This pattern is mirrored by the UK asylum statistics, but with something of a time-lag. This can be explained simply by the time it takes to travel (6-12 months) by land from Afghanistan to the UK. [Graph 3 & 4: See below]
Now, we all know that the Afghan War began on 7 October 2001 and at first glance it would appear that this provides some circumstantial support for Woolas' 'thesis'. However, the Afghan situation is much more complicated that say that of Iraq or Somalia, current conflicts that have been subjected to extensive study and statistical analysis.
Normally the pattern for population movements during a large-scale armed conflict, is for an increase in numbers of externally displaced peoples. This is the norm for conflicts on the African landmass. In Afghanistan, however, the opposite appears to have occurred, with numbers falling rapidly during 'Operation Enduring Freedom', the first phase of the war. So why could that be?
Firstly, this hi-tech form of war is very different to those that regularly occur in the Horn of Africa for example. The amount of ordinance used and the lack of combatants on the ground initially would have led to a different sort of conflict. Estimates for the numbers of civilians killed in Afghanistan vary greatly but conservation numbers appear to show that at least 4,200-4,500 were killed by mid-January 2002 as a result of the U.S. war and air-strikes, with some claiming up to 20,000 Afghans dying as a consequence of the first four months of U.S. air-strikes. In the first 2 years estimates for direct and indirect civilian deaths range between 6,300 - 23,600, with the total from 2001 to the present from 12,460 - 32,057. This is as part of a population estimated to be 26,813,057 in July 2001 and currently 28,150,000.
Secondly, the major part of the conflict was fought in the much more densely populated East of the country, where the population can and do freely cross the border into Pakistan. As we have seen in the recent Pakistan army operations, large scale population movements readily occur across state/regional boundaries and these most certainly do not lead to asylum applications. If you are hopeful that Western involvement in your country will lead to societal improvements, surely you would take the short trip to relative safety in neighbouring countries rather than travel halfway across the world? On top of this Iran effectively closed its border with the country in the run up to the War and kept it closed, cutting off the main smuggling route to the West.
So initially it would appear reasonable that the numbers of asylum seekers making to the industrial countries would show a dramatic decrease. It would probably stay that way for a while with a multi-national occupying force in the country offering the potential of economic and developmental aid and employment. And who would be the people most likely to remain? Those who would probably be most likely to seek a life in the West. Those who could speak one of the myriad of languages of the occupiers.
In the meantime, the Taliban has become more and more active as the local population have come to realise that the Knights in camouflaged armour have not turned out to be quiet what they claimed they would be. Increased insurgency, the inability to protect the people that put their lives on the line to work with the UN and NATO** and the lack of real developmental progress, coupled with widespread political corruption has led many people to consider a long and perilous and expensive journey to uncertain life in a country they know next to nothing about as the better option when compared to what their life in Afghanistan is and might become.
So why has the recent increase in numbers of asylum seekers been relatively small when compared to pre-war levels. The simple answer is that it is so much more difficult, not only to make it to your country of choice and make an asylum application, but also to have that application accepted. The walls of Fortress Europe for example have become more fortified and refugees are being much more readily deported if they manage to scale those ramparts. Britain for example carries out weekly deportation flights to Kabul, and this at a time when the UN has cut its international staff in the country by more than a half because of the deteriorating security situation.
So there is some anecdotal evidence that the correlation between the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan and the levels of Afghan refugees. Yet Woolas appears to be claiming that the government has something a bit more substantial than mere anecdotal evidence. Yet any scientist knows that real evidence must be able to be subjected to statistical analysis and one needs a 'control' for that. We have data for asylum application rates for before the war and during the occupation, but that is it. For a control, we need a country almost exactly the same economically and socially as Afghanistan but that wasn't invaded and occupied by the US and it allies, not of course forgetting a Taliban-style 'insurgency'. One that could provide meaningful data that could then be compared to what has happened in Afghanistan to show what would happen if NATO pulled out. Or even such a country that had recently been subjected to such a war and occupation and had been evacuated of troops. Know of an example of a country like either one of those Phil? We thought not.
So in the end it looks like your evidence is not worth the empty fag packet its scribbled on the back of.
* The sample base used by the UNHCR for their statistical analyses.
** Interpreters have been particularly badly treated. After having survived years of the Taliban, where a knowledge of a foreign language could quiet easily get you killed, they are often now in daily fear for their lives as many fail to meet the stringent resettlement criteria of NATO and the UN.
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3
Graph 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)