LAST week officials from Myanmar, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Cambodia, Laos, the US, Vietnam and other countries and organisations met in Bangkok to discuss a regional crisis. Thousands of people were drifting in desperate circumstances after being stranded on boats in the Bay of Bengal, Andaman Sea and Strait of Malacca.
By AMY MAGUIRE | June 4, 2015, 9:37 p.m.
LAST week officials from Myanmar, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, Cambodia, Laos, the US, Vietnam and other countries and organisations met in Bangkok to discuss a regional crisis. Thousands of people were drifting in desperate circumstances after being stranded on boats in the Bay of Bengal, Andaman Sea and Strait of Malacca.
Most of the people are ethnic Rohingya, who are subject to persecution in Myanmar. Others are from Bangladesh, fleeing persecution or severe poverty.
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand denied them safe landing for several weeks. The Rohingya plight was broadcast globally and their suffering finally became impossible to ignore. Indonesia and Malaysia relented and offered temporary shelter to some. These countries appealed for regional co-operation to arrange the permanent resettlement of refugees in other countries, including Australia.
The most affected states agreed to intensify search-and-rescue operations and address the ‘‘root causes’’ of the migration, however their public statement failed to mention the Rohingya people.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has ruled out accepting any Rohingya refugees for resettlement. Mr Abbott’s response was heard around the world: ‘‘Nope, nope, nope. I’m sorry. If you want a new life, you come through the front door, not through the back door.’’
Mr Abbott’s reply is characteristic of the dehumanising tone of much of the Australian debate on asylum seekers. While the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) expressed dismay, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten endorsed the refusal to accept some Rohingya refugees. Mr Shorten said there were alternatives to Abbott’s “dumbed down” approach, ‘‘but the answer doesn’t mean that we take these people here’’.
Indonesia has criticised Australia’s attitude. Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi said it was “not fair” to depict the crisis as Indonesia’s problem. Indonesian foreign affairs spokesman Arrmanatha Nassir depicted Australia as hypocritical: ‘‘Countries that are party to the Convention on Refugees have a responsibility to ensure that they believe in what they sign … If you believe it when you sign it, you should act upon it.’’
Such comments could be read to imply that Australia’s response is ungenerous. Asian neighbours may even regard Australia’s attitude to the problem as racist.
Can we move beyond the “stop the boats” rhetoric and recast this debate in humane terms? We have had more than two decades of increasingly punitive policy from both sides of politics.
In 2015, asylum seekers who attempt to reach Australia by sea are called “illegal maritime arrivals”. This echoes the pejorative term “queue jumpers”, a notion reinforced by Mr Abbott’s determination to prevent asylum seekers from using the “back door”. Such language leaves little space for recognition that people seeking asylum from persecution are exercising human and legal rights.
Australia and other countries must work to prevent people smuggling, which trades in human suffering and risks lives. This was clear in the gruesome discovery of people-smuggling camps and mass graves in Malaysia and Thailand in May. Yet the suffering of those who take to the seas in search of asylum obliges us to find legal and humane alternatives to current policy.
Significant re-orientation is required to bring Australia’s policy into line with international law. Australia has been criticised for its boat turn-back policy, which may result in the refoulement of refugees. The UN has accused Australia of committing human rights violations, including torture and inhumane treatment, through its offshore detention program. The detention of children causes particular harm.
Australia claims to be part of Asia when it suits, but has reduced the regional challenge of asylum seekers to a unilateral policy of deterrence. This is a politically self-serving and short-sighted strategy, which avoids the burden of working on regional solutions.
Australia should show regional and global leadership by developing policy that centralises concern for human rights and well-being. In relation to the stranded Rohingya and Bangladeshis, Australia should support the 10-point action plan put forward by the UNHCR and associated organisations. This calls on countries to attend to the immediate needs of asylum seekers, including rescue, safe disembarkation, food and medical care and speedy status determinations.
Origin countries Myanmar and Bangladesh must attend to the root causes of this migration, including the effective statelessness suffered by the Rohingya in both countries.
The European Community is debating a quota system for settling refugees throughout the European Union to ensure a shared regional response. Perhaps Australia and its neighbours could consider similar co-operation on resettlement, according to the relative capacities of the countries involved.
Australia ought to acknowledge what appears clear to EU member states: there is a massive global refugee crisis. Australia should prioritise human well-being over self-interest or the politicisation of human tragedy.
Amy Maguire is a lecturer in international law at the University of Newcastle