I left home to be free
To escape cruel war and tyranny
I came here in a broken down ship
But was enslaved as a refugee.
Federal elections in Australia are not fixed events and are called approximately every three years by the government of the day in accordance with the soothsaying apparatus of the modern liberal democratic state: betting odds and opinion polls. Those who are eligible to cast a vote must participate in this civic activity as Australia has had a system of compulsory voting in place since 1924. One of only a score of nations that requires its citizens to vote in national elections, the turnout in Australia is high with an average of 94.5 per cent in the 24 elections since 1946. So what do elections have to do with race?
‘I just unveiled the Coalition’s border protection billboard in Perth’
- tweeted Tony Abbott Federal Opposition leader.
It reads:
‘How many illegal boats have arrived since Kevin Rudd took over?’ (22 April 2010 crikey.com.au)
For those who work in refugee human rights, the spectre of race interpellates the very essence of how the intersecting discourses of border protection, ‘illegal’ immigration and anti-terrorism have come to shape the Australian polity’s attitudes to those seeking asylum. While there is a well-documented history of the various waves of xenophobic and racist rants about non-white arrivals to the nation, the currency of this latest version has its beginnings in the previous Howard government’s use of the electoral podium to wedge their political opponents into a corner about race, asylum and immigration.
‘Maverick Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey has lit a match under the nation’s explosive border protection debate, claiming unlawful boats on their way to Australia could have terrorists on board’ (Balogh 2010).
The construction of the refugee as a dangerous interloper has provided legitimacy to the brutal disciplinary practices towards those seeking asylum in Australia since September 11 2001. Even before that in 1999, the former Federal government introduced a new regime for refugees: the Temporary Protection Visa (TPV). This visa aptly named subclass 785 was just that; it effaced all the rights ordinarily afforded to refugees because they happened to arrive by boat, or in Government terminology, as ‘unauthorised arrivals’. The term ‘queue jumper’ became a derogatory moniker in the Australian vernacular that specifically referred to this group of asylum seekers who were mostly Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Palestinians, Iranians and Tamils. On arrival, they were summarily incarcerated in prison complexes around the country in accordance with the policy of mandatory detention. The place names still bring a chill to those who endured the traumatic months and years behind the razor wire at Woomera, Baxter, Port Hedland, Villawood and Maribyrnong. Inside, conditions were deliberately harsh, and asylum seekers were deprived of the most basic of human rights, with many falling into depression and mental ill-health.
I miss you mother, I am alone
That I should feel so sick for my home
If only you knew what I have gone through
Then you would hurry to see me too.
The portrayal of asylum seekers as a threat to the nation has worked especially well for the local border panic constituency, most notably, the anxious white subject in fear of being ‘swamped’ by ‘hordes’ of swarthy others. The racialising process is at once a dehumanising process, and the asylum seeker – the most vulnerable of individuals – is once again the pawn in the Federal Opposition’s strategic reprising of the racialised immigration debate as Australia prepares for a Federal election.
Australians had been more “relaxed and comfortable” about immigration during the Howard government, Mr Abbott argued, despite the intake rising from under 100,000 to over 200,000 (Kelly, 2010)
Former Prime Minister John Howard most famously caterwauled ‘we decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come’ to his party faithful in the midst of the 2001 November election campaign. Merging traditional anti-immigrant politics with the politics of anti-terrorism, this election became otherwise known as the ‘race election’. As xenophobic and racial fantasies captivated the white imaginary, this instance of hyping up paranoia around border control and national security provided Australians with a new ‘race devil’ to position themselves against: the Muslim asylum seeker.
God has given me a pure heart
There is no one who knows even a small part
Of my suffering, no one knows my mind
That is why understanding is hard to find
A traumatic period that included the stand-off between the good ship Tampa carrying over 400 refugees rescued from sea and the Australian government, the sinking of SIEV X, a boat carrying over 350 nameless asylum seekers, with mostly women and children drowning just weeks out from the federal election, and the ‘children overboard’ incident in which the Government claimed asylum seekers threatened to throw their children overboard if they were not allowed entry into Australia. In relation to the last event, Howard’s ‘we decide who comes here’ comment encapsulates how the politics of othering became a productive force in reiterating populist attitudes towards asylum seekers as barbarians, while reaffirming ‘an Australian “self” — that of a “good”,“moral” Australian citizen’ (Slattery, 2003: 94).
Howard’s racialised tropes of otherness drew on ‘a binary of good and bad citizenship within a family context’ when he said that ‘I don’t want in Australia people who would throw their children into the sea, I don’t think any Australian does’ (Slattery, 2003: 95). While the claims were found to be baseless, the story was decisive in portraying those seeking asylum outside the norms and values of the ‘ordinary’ Australian, and hence provided a strategic mask for Howard’s racialised discourse.[5] After all, they were mostly Afghan and Iraqi subjects.
‘Our border protection policy is to stop the boats. We have done this before and we will do it again. We are prepared to take the tough decisions that Kevin Rudd and Labor seek to avoid’ (Turnbull, November 2009).
With key former attack dogs banished to the political wilderness of defeat, those left in Opposition embark on a dogged pursuit to make the 2010 Federal election another race election. In response to the relentless hectoring by the Opposition about on-shore arrivals, the Labor government succumbed to populist fear and announced in April that ‘there would be no processing of new asylum claims by Sri Lankan nationals for three months and by Afghan nationals for six months’ (McAdam and Murphy April 2010). The rationale goes like this: ‘changing circumstances in these countries mean fewer people are likely to need protection as refugees’ (McAdam and Murphy April 2010).
The flames of war have spread across the lands
Brother fights against brother
All has been destroyed, nothing stands,
Graves embrace the dead,
A desperate mother cries, head in her hands.
Is there anyone who seriously believes that conditions have improved in the political wreckage of Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, enough to convince even the most optimistic of punters that it is safe for civilians? A month before the government’s caving in to the forces of racial fear, both Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International called on the Sri Lankan government to end its ‘harassment of journalists and activists and [to] take steps against those making threats’ (Human Rights Watch March 2010). According to human rights monitors, ‘since the January 2010 presidential election, the government has engaged in a campaign to silence and discredit journalists and nongovernmental organisations’ (Human Rights Watch March 2010). If journalists and NGOs are not safe in Sri Lanka – those brave agencies and individuals who in times of war act as a protective force for civilian life, speaking out against state atrocities and providing limited refuge by virtue of their ‘protected’ office – how on earth are we to believe that civilians are safe and conditions improved?
As for Afghanistan, in a letter published in March to the Permanent Missions to the United Nations Office at Geneva, the director of Asia Division of Human Rights Watch, Brad Adams, and the Geneva Advocacy Director, Julie de Rivero, raised concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation in that fractured country. They write:
‘The High Commissioner’s report [presented to the Human Rights Council on 24 March 2010] notes that “the escalation and spread of armed conflict resulted in the highest number of civilian casualties recorded since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001 and in the further erosion of humanitarian space. While the armed opposition was responsible for the majority of civilian casualties, deaths as a result of air strikes by international forces continued to be a high-profile and contentious issue.” Explosive devices caused most deaths, with assassinations, including beheadings, adding to the death toll and levels of fear in communities’(Adams and Rivero, 2010).
It is documented in human rights circles that conditions have not improved, most notably, in the case of the targeted minorities who are especially at risk in both Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. It is the Hazara and the Tamils who make up the bulk of the recent on-shore arrivals to Australia, having escaped the abjection of war and ‘post-war’ terror alike and are now caught up in the frenzy of an Australian election year. Human Rights Watch sent the Australian Minster for Immigration Chris Evans a missive after the announcement stating that,
‘research shows that conditions in both countries are such that individuals returned will still be vulnerable to persecution and lack adequate protection. More fundamentally, this suspension deprives asylum seekers of their right to seek asylum from persecution, as guaranteed by article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (Human Rights Watch).
It seems Human Rights Watch research is as far from English language news as Kandahar, unless of course an Australian troop is killed; but shrill statements about ‘hordes arriving at the doorstep’ always makes a good doorstop bite for the 6 o’clock news, or even a TV show on border security on a harmless Sunday night.
My wounded heart cries bitterly longing
My face tells the story of despair and separation
In the beautiful land of migration
The buds of my thoughts are blossoming
Border Panic Disorder (BPD) is a chronic condition that has afflicted the nation for over a century now, with acute bouts occurring triennially. The signs include pounding podiums in front of feverish crowds, peddling fear and dehumanising the brown-subject-seeking-asylum. There is no immediate elixir for this affective ailment, other than short-term attempts at getting the terminology right and perhaps adhering to international humanitarian obligations as set out in various conventions that Australia has signed. A quick lesson in the language lab might ameliorate the recovery process. At the very least, we might want to get the terms right.
Lesson 1: Who is a refugee?
A refugee is an individual recognized under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. This convention defines a refugee as a person who:
‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it’ (UNHCR).
This is the definition used by Australia when assessing claims for protection.[1] So, refugees have to be outside their country of origin and the reason for their flight has to be a fear of persecution and that fear has to be well-founded. The persecution has to result from one or more of the 5 grounds listed in the definition, that is race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion and they have to be unwilling or unable to seek the protection of their country (UNHCR).
Case study 1: Afghan Hazara: Persecuted minority. Tick.
Case study 2: Sri Lankan Tamil: Persecuted minority. Tick.
Lesson 2: What is the difference between a refugee and a migrant?
Refugees are often confused with migrants. In international law, the term refugee has a specific meaning and should not be confused with a migrant who makes a considered choice to leave his or her country of origin and is therefore able to return should he or she choose to do so. The migrant is able to pack his or her bags, say goodbye to loved ones and lock the front door. A refugee runs for his or her life, often loses all his/her family and doesn’t stop to pack any traveling documents.
Task: Read poem. Analyse.
Fled from homeland to be free
On a broken ship in a stormy sea
Reaching the land with so many scars
The voices of Iraqis and Afghans behind bars
Ask, is it my fault we are human beings?
Lesson 3: When is a refugee really a refugee?
There is a tendency by commentators and advocates alike to insert the adjective ‘genuine’ before the word refugee. This is a common tautology. To be termed a ‘refugee’ means that an individual has been through the refugee determination process and has met all the stated criteria. Therefore, the need for a qualifier to denote that a refugee is indeed genuine makes little sense in the terms of the law. Perhaps Gertrude Stein might opine if she were alive today, ‘A refugee is a refugee is a refugee’ just as a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose was in her day.
Task: Repeat: A refugee is a refugee is a refugee is a refugee.
Lesson 4: Who is an asylum seeker?
Asylum-seekers are individuals who have sought international protection and whose claims for refugee status have not yet been determined.[2] That’s what we call individuals who have not been through the refugee determination process, but are seeking refuge outside their country. They have this right under international law. In Australia, the rate of success for asylum seekers gaining refugee status is over 90%.
Lesson 5: Who are ‘boat people’?
‘Boat people’ is a term used in the media and other places to describe asylum seekers who arrive by boat or attempt to arrive by boat without ‘authority’ to enter Australia. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship uses the term ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’ or ‘unlawful boat arrivals’.[3] If you are not Indigenous to the country, then you, like the Tamils and the Hazara are boat people. As the activist group is aptly named, ‘We are all boat people’.
Q. What sort of craft did your family arrive on? (Clue: if your family has been in Australia for more than 2 generations, go take an educated punt).
Lesson 6: So, who are we calling ‘illegal’ then?
‘Illegal immigrants are people who enter a country without meeting legal requirements for entry, or residence. On the other hand, refugees often arrive with ‘barest necessities’ and without personal documents … Refugees may not be able to obtain the necessary documents when trying to escape and may have no choice but to resort to illegal means of escape. Therefore although the only means of escape for some may be illegal entry and/or the use of false documentation, if the person has a well-founded fear of persecution they should be viewed as a refugee and not labeled an ‘illegal immigrant’. The Refugee Convention says that states should not impose penalties on individuals coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened on account of their illegal entry. (Article 31) Furthermore, under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum’. (UNHCR)
Task: Write a hundred times: ‘Asylum seekers are not illegals’, then send to the news and /or Leader of the Opposition.
Lesson 7: What exactly is it that we signed?
Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea and other South Pacific states in the region are signatories to many of the international human rights instruments, including the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
In addition to this Convention, there is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, a statement of the basic rights and fundamental freedoms owed to all human beings. As a declaration, it does not have binding force, but it is internationally recognised as a cornerstone of human rights protection. Article 14.1 states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” This principle is at the root of refugee rights world-wide, and forms the basis of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
The 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol is a legally binding treaty and a milestone in international refugee law. Australia ratified the 1951 UN Refugee Convention on 22 January 1954, and the 1967 protocol on 13 Dec 1973. There is no monitoring mechanism or committee that examines countries to see whether they are complying with their obligations under the Convention, so it is up to the signatory State to implement its commitments faithfully. States that are party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol undertake to accord to refugees the legal status and minimum standards of treatment as outlined in its text.
Q. So why do we sign conventions we can’t keep?
It seems we are good at signing conventions, but have a poor record in staying true to the spirit of conventions. This brings to mind a skit in an episode of the TV series Seinfeld, when the New York satirist challenges the desk clerk at a car rental outlet. In a typically Seinfeld moment, he has just been told the car he reserved is not available. The dialogue goes something like this.
Seinfeld: I don’t understand. I made a reservation. Do you have my reservation?
Reservation Clerk: Yes we do. Unfortunately we ran out of cars.
Seinfeld: But the reservation keeps the car here. That’s why you have the reservation.
Reservation Clerk: I know why we have reservations.
Seinfeld: I don’t think you do. (Applause). If you did, I’d have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don’t know how to hold the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them.
In much the same way, we know how to sign conventions, but implementing them is another story. And like Seinfeld, many would agree that this is really the most important part, the keeping of the convention, adhering to the articles within the convention. Anybody can just sign them.
Longing to see Sakhi to offer my prayers
I cross the tulips through the desert
Crying aloud, the tears run down my face
I yearn for what I don’t yet seek
Stop press.
‘Millions of people could be tempted to seek asylum in Australia by boat under current border protection rules if global conditions deteriorated, Tony Abbott warned today.’ (Kelly, May 2010).
It must an election year.
Notes and References:
Adams, B. + J. Rivero ‘Letter: The situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan’ March 18, 2010 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/18/letter-situation-human-rights-afghanistan cited 19 May 2010.
Balogh, S. ‘Wilson Tuckey rocks boat on border protection debate’ October 22, 2009
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/wilson-tuckey-rocks-boat-on-border-protection-debate/story-e6freooo-1225790197700 cited 19 May 2010.
Crikey.com.au ‘Classy, real classy Tony’ http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/22/crikey-says-classy-real-classy/ cited 19 May 2010.
Human Rights Watch, ‘Letter to Australian Minister of Immigration Chris Evans on Processing New Asylum Claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan’ April 14, 2010 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/04/14/letter-australian-minister-immigration-chris-evans-processing-new-asylum-claims-sri- cited 19 May 2010.
Human Rights Watch, ‘Sri Lanka: End Witch Hunt Against the Media and NGOs Government Intensifies Campaign to Discredit Civil Society’ March 10, 2010.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/10/sri-lanka-end-witch-hunt-against-media-and-ngos cited 19 May 2010.
Kelly, J ‘Tony Abbott warns millions of asylum-seekers could arrive by boat’ May 04, 2010 4:26PM http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/tony-abbott-warns-millions-of-asylum-seekers-could-arrive-by-boat/story-e6frgczf-1225862132786
cited 18 May 2010.
McAdam, J. and K. Murphy, ‘Refugee processing freeze breaches international law’ April 14, 2010 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/refugee-processing-freeze-breaches-international-law/story-e6frg6zo-1225853374644 20 April 2010.
Seinfeld, J. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7uvttu8ct0 cited 1 May.
Slattery, K. (2003) ‘Drowning not waving: The ‘children overboard” event and Australia’s fear of the “other”’ (eds) Jacka, L. and L Green The New ‘Others’: Media & Society Post September 11 No 109 November 2003 Media International incorporating Culture and Policy Faculty of Arts, Griffith University.
Turnbull, M. ‘Coalition’s Strong Stand on Border Protection’ published November 13, 2009
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/releases/coalitions-strong-stand-on-border-protection/ cited 19 May 2010.
UNHCR http://www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml cited 1 may 2010.
[1] http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm#_ftn71
[2] The Department of Immigration and Citizenship states that ‘those covered [by the UNHCR] refer to claimants whose individual applications were pending at the end of 2008, irrespective of when they may have been lodged. People who have left their country of origin, applied for recognition as a refugee in another country, and are awaiting a decision on their application. Each year people already in Australia claim asylum and make applications for protection (refugee status). These include people who arrived ‘lawfully’ with a valid visa and people who have arrived ‘unlawfully’ in Australia by sea or air without a valid visa. If asylum seekers are found to be owed protection by Australia (having met the UNHCR definition of a refugee, as defined in the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees) they will be granted a permanent Protection visa, provided they meet all health and character requirements’. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm#_ftn71
[3] http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm#_ftn65
0 Responses to “Desperately Seeking Asylum :: Race, Rights and Refugees”