Brian Senewiratne
MA (Cantab). MD (Lond). FRCP(Lond). FRACP
Brisbane, Australia
Summary and Action needed
On 9 April, 2010, the Australian government declared the suspension of applications for asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, with immediate effect.
1) This is discriminatory and violates the UN Refugee convention. It also violates the Racial Discrimination Act of Australia.
2) It denies asylum seekers the right to seek asylum from persecution, violating the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Australian government claims that the situation in both countries has improved, and that more and more asylum seeker applications will be rejected, and the refugees returned to their countries. There is well-documented evidence, not least from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, that these countries are thoroughly unsafe places. As such, the decision is completely unacceptable and indefensible.
The real reason for this irresponsible decision is that Australia is facing an Election before the end of the year, and the asylum-seeker issue is being portrayed in alarmist terms by both the major parties to generate fear and paranoia among voters. Asylum seekers are being used as a political football to woo voters – a crude ‘anti-asylum seeker auction’.
Of serious concern is a sinister Bill that has just been passed by the Australian government, The Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill. Cloaked in the garb of blocking “funds for people smuggling ventures” is the ability to block, discourage or invoke fear in those who send money for the refugees and others in desperate need of help. It enables the Police to swoop down on them and accuse them of sending money to ‘people smugglers’ or even ‘terrorists’.
This decision to suspend applications for asylum, and the Bill, have to be withdrawn immediately. This will not happen unless there is widespread pressure on Australian politicians from within Australia and from outside. I am therefore calling for a national and international protest and action:-
1. By writing a letter of protest to the Australian Prime Minister,
the Leader of the Opposition and the Media.
2. By launching protests in Canberra and at Australian Embassies across the world.
The very least that can be done is to write a letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbott (Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, Australia 2600), expressing your sense of outrage. This should be done immediately, because the suspension of applications from Sri Lankans is due to expire on 8 July 20, and if we do nothing, it will be renewed. A protest outside the Australian Embassy in your country will send a powerful message, and I urge that this be done at once.
The Decision of the Australian Government – 9 April 2010
On 9 April, 2010, the Australian government declared the suspension of applications for asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, with immediate effect. The suspension is for 3 and 6 months respectively, but can be renewed and probably will be.
Coupled with this, is legislation that has just been passed, The Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill. Behind the garb of blocking funds for ‘people smugglers’ is the ability to block and intimidate those who send money for refugees and others in desperate need of help. This is of serous concern because it is open to abuse by the authorities.
What was released was a joint statement[1] by Chris Evans, Minister of Immigration, Stephen Smith, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Brendon O’Connor, Minister of Home Affairs. From the comments made by the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and his recent[2] replacement, Julia Gillard, their names will have to be included. Gillard who was the powerful Deputy Prime Minister[3] when the decision was announced, has, since her appointment as Prime Minister, confirmed that there will be no policy change, even a tightening of an already inhuman policy.
The statement:-
1). Is discriminatory (because it affects asylum seekers only from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan). It violates the UN Refugee Convention of 1951[4], and the 1967 Protocol, signed by Australia. This is the key legal document which defines who are refugees, their rights, and the legal obligations of States that have signed the Convention. Article 3: "The Contracting Parties shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin."
It also violates Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) of 1975. The RDA makes racial discrimination unlawful in Australia. It based on section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution and arises from the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination to which Australia is a signatory.
To suspend asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, while continuing to process those from other countries, is clearly discriminatory. If, for whatever reason, Australia cannot cope with any more asylum seekers (the reasons will have to be stated), then it must apply to all asylum seekers.
2). It denies asylum seekers the right to seek asylum from persecution.
There is extensive evidence, which I will set out, that asylum seekers fleeing Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are fleeing persecution or the fear thereof, based on good evidence. As such, it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the core document on Human Rights, signed and ratified by Australia:- Article 14 (1): “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”
The (claimed) reason for this outrageous decision was the (claimed) “evolving circumstances” in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. It implies that conditions in these two countries have improved, i.e. it is safe for asylum seekers to return. Since there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is either a disingenuous lie, or an acknowledgment that Australian politicians are dangerously ignorant about countries which they should know better. Either way, it is completely unacceptable.
It is absurd to suggest that Australian parliamentarians, in particular the Minister of Foreign Affairs who signed this statement, and the Prime Minister, were unaware that the conditions in these countries have not improved. The evidence that these countries are dangerous places comes from Australia’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that has issued clear warnings to tourists to these countries (see below). It is mind-boggling hypocrisy to state that it is too dangerous for tourists to visit these countries, but acceptable for refugees to return to them.
The real reason
The real reason for this irresponsible act is that Australia is facing a General Election (due before December 2010, probably October – before the new Prime Minister’s ‘honey-moon’ period is over). Both major political parties, struggling to win the election (Labor in power, and Liberal trying to regain it), are trying to outdo each other in claiming to adopt a ‘tough’ policy on asylum seekers. ‘Inhuman’ would be a more appropriate word for action which results in highly traumatised people being refused entry to seek asylum. It is a disgraceful ‘asylum seeker political auction’.
This inhuman policy is portrayed to the Australian people in alarmist terms, “border protection”, “preventing Australia from being ‘swamped’ by refugees’”, “preventing ‘terrorists’ from coming here”, “preventing ‘queue jumpers’”, to fan hysteria and paranoia. Having done so, these political opportunists offer themselves as the ‘protectors’ of Australia. These terms, which have no basis, are used to win the support of the voters.
The fact that it is a violation of the UN Refugee Convention, signed and ratified by Australia, and a violation of Australia’s own Racial Discrimination Act, are conveniently ignored. The vast majority of voters are unaware of these Conventions and Acts.
Not stupidity but a lack of integrity
Australian politicians are not stupid. It is not stupidity or ignorance but an absolute lack of honesty and integrity, and a determination to get into, or remain in power, taking political opportunism to an abysmal level. It is irresponsible and despicable politics, a game played by both major political parties, to use false claims to mislead the public to score political points, which, it is hoped, will translate into votes (as happened in 2001 – the ‘Tampa Election’ – see below).
This political opportunism is a mirror image of what has been going on in Sri Lanka since Independence (1948), which has prevented the building of a nation and has destroyed that country. The platform on which the two main Sinhalese (74%) political parties have fought their political battles is on how anti-Tamil (18.5%) they will be if elected to power[5]. However, Sri Lanka is a 3rd World despotic dictatorship[6], a Failed State. Australia is not such a country, nor one whose politicians should be getting into such destructive political opportunism. Australia can do better.
Déjà Vu
Australian politicians have been down this road before, bringing international condemnation, and even having Australia reported (by Norway) to the United Nations, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Maritime Organisation, for failure to deliver its duties under international law.
I refer to the ‘Tampa crisis’ (August 2001) created by the then Prime Minister, John Howard (Liberal). It was, like the present problem, immediately before a General Election (November 2001), which has been called the “Tampa Election”. The election campaign, based on downright lies, fabrications, and the flouting of International Conventions, got Howard another term in office but heaped international disgrace on Australia.
Since Australia, under (former)) Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and now Julia Gillard (Labor), is going down the same road, with a General Election due before December 2010, we must act now, rather than have an election which could be an ‘Asylum-Seeker Election’.
The effect of the suspension was spelt out in the statement:-
- “The combined effect of this suspension and the changing circumstances in these two countries will mean that it is likely that, in the future, more asylum claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan will be refused”.
Australia claiming to know what will happen in these countries “in the future”, and that this will determine future asylum claims, is unprecedented. I know of no other country that has had the presumption, or the recklessness, to do so.
As for ‘changing circumstances’ – they certainly are changing, but for the worse. I will deal with this later.
Of serious concern is that more asylum claims (for refuge in Australia) will be refused, which necessarily means that they will be sent back to the countries from which they are fleeing. This is not only utterly irresponsible, but a violation of the UN Refugee Convention.
Asylum seekers and ‘people smugglers’
The announcement of the suspension of asylum procedures, jointly with the announcement of enhanced measures to stop people smuggling, is to insinuate criminality on the part of asylum seekers. While ‘people smuggling’ for profit might be a criminal act, seeking asylum is not, and never has been. To tie the two together is a completely irresponsible thing for any responsible government to do.
Who is a ‘Refugee’ or ‘Asylum seeker’?
Australia cannot make up its own definition of who are ‘Refugees’ or “Asylum seekers’. These have been clearly defined in the UN Refugee Convention and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
UN Refugee Convention Article 1. Section A - A Refugee
For the purposes of the Convention, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who has:- “a 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.
This has been put into straight-forward language in the UNHCR summary[7]:
“Refugees are forced to leave their countries because they have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of persecution. Refugees run away. They often do not know where they will end up. Refugees rarely have the chance to make plans for their departure such as packing their personal belongings or saying farewell to loved ones. Many refugees have experienced severe trauma or have been tortured.”
It goes on to spell out the “Most important parts of the refugee definition” as:
· Refugees have to be outside their country of origin;
· The reason for their flight has to be a fear of persecution;
· The fear of persecution 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;
· They have to be unwilling or unable to seek the protection of their country.
An “Asylum Seeker” has been set out in the UNHCR Summary: “An asylum seeker is a person who has left his or her country of origin, has applied for recognition as a refugee in another country, and is awaiting a decision on their application”.
One way or the other, Tamils fleeing the murderous regime in Sri Lanka, are “Refugees” or “Asylum seekers”, or both. So are the Afghanis. As such, they have Rights which the Convention is there to protect.
I will now set out a part of the recent Press Release. My comments are in parentheses. I will specifically focus on Sri Lanka, because the time-line for the suspension of asylum seekers from that country runs out on 8 July 2010, and immediate action is needed before it is renewed.
The press release by the Australian government on 9 April 2010
“9 April 2010 Changes to Australia's immigration processing system
Effective immediately, the Australian Government has today introduced a suspension of the processing of new asylum applications from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.
- This suspension has been made as a result of the evolving circumstances in these two countries.
(This is arrant nonsense. The Australian government’s travel advice valid up to the time of writing i.e. today, 29 June 2010, has a different message:-
Referring to Sri Lanka[8], it says:
“We advise you to reconsider your need to travel to Sri Lanka at this time because of the volatile security situation. Sri Lanka remains in a State of Emergency. While the conventional conflict …… has ended…., there remains a high risk of politically motivated violence throughout the country. Travellers should exercise extreme caution and maintain a high level of personal security awareness. Attacks could occur at any time, anywhere in Sri Lanka. ….. Attacks have also occurred in crowded market areas and on public transport. You should avoid using public transport at all times and exercise a high level of caution close to train stations, bus stops and large public markets. Because of the dangerous security situation, we strongly recommend that you register your travel and contact details with us so we can contact you in an emergency.
Incidents of violent crime occur in Sri Lanka, including sexual assault and robbery. Policing in remote areas is often hampered by a lack of resources and poor infrastructure. There have been incidents of kidnapping for ransom in Sri Lanka, including in Colombo.
Due to the volatile security situation in Sri Lanka, you should take stringent security precautions at all times.”
There are more warnings which can be accessed on the website which is updated regularly.
Referring to Afghanistan, the recommendations are similar[9]:
“We strongly advise you not to travel to Afghanistan because of the extremely dangerous security situation and the very high threat of terrorist attack.
If you are in Afghanistan, you should consider leaving. Australians who decide to remain in Afghanistan should ensure that they have personal security measures in place. You should monitor local information sources for details about the safety and security environment.
The Australian government is speaking with a forked tongue. It is too dangerous a place to go to, but is a suitable place for refugee seekers/asylum seekers to return to!
There are no “evolving circumstances” in Sri Lanka. The gross violation of human rights of the Tamil people in the North and East under a politico-military fascist dictatorship continues. The claim that there are ‘evolving circumstances’, implying an improvement in the humanitarian concerns, is absolutely untrue. It is a barefaced lie. The Australian government is simply repeating the line of the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) without looking at the extensive evidence to the contrary which is readily available (see below).
As recently as 8 March 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed concerns[10] about the lack of progress on political reconciliation, the treatment of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and the setting up of an accountability process in Sri Lanka since the United Nations signed a joint statement with the Government last year in the wake of the end of its civil war with separatist Tamil rebels.)
- The combined effect of this suspension and the changing circumstances in these two countries will mean that it is likely that, in the future, more asylum claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan will be refused.
(I have already commented on the absurdity of Australia claiming to know the future in these countries. I have also pointed out that the refusal of claims for asylum is a violation of the UN Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed and ratified, and Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act. It is a legal problem that has to be challenged legally.)
- Sri Lanka is a country in transition after two decades of conflict, with hopes for further improvement and stabilisation in conditions.
(There has been no ‘conflict’ in Sri Lanka. What there has been for five decades, are a series of increasingly virulent pogroms against the Tamil people by a succession of Sinhalese-dominated governments, assisted by Sinhalese political opportunists and ethno-religious chauvinists, and conducted by the Sinhalese Armed Forces (99% Sinhalese), and Sinhalese Police (95% Sinhalese), with a degeneracy of Sinhala society and its rapid descent to barbarism. There is now increasing evidence of the intention to commit Genocide[11] of the Tamil people by the Sinhalese-dominated government.
The result of this has been the Tamils asking for a Separate Tamil State, for which there was an overwhelming mandate from the Tamil people in the North and East in the 1977 General Election. With the failure of non-violent political protests, over a prolonged period, for some degree of devolution of power to the Tamil areas, the Tamil youths resorted to an armed struggle. The armed struggle is a consequence of the failure of the democratic process in Sri Lanka.
As for “hopes for further improvement”, decisions such as this cannot be made on “hopes”, they have to be made on documented achievements.
There is no evidence that there has been improvement, let alone ‘further improvement’, or ‘stabilisation’. There is evidence of a dismantling of democracy and the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, or worse, a totalitarian set-up. I will deal with this in a separate paper – Sri Lanka’s Totalitarian Regime).
- The UNHCR is reviewing country conditions in both these countries and related guidelines for refugee status determination.
(If that is so, then Australia should have waited for the UNHCR review. Why the haste? The answer seems to be the need for political point-scoring with an impending election.
A damning report[12] on Sri Lanka, the CORI Report (Country of Origin Research and Information), commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Division of International Protection, was released only a few days after the decision by the Australian government. Will the Australian government now withdraw this outrageous decision, or is it waiting (and hoping) for a better report? If so, the credibility of the Australian government is at stake.
The facts are that:-
1) Sri Lanka has recently been thrown out of the position it held on the UN Human Rights Council on its poor human rights record.
2) The European Union has just suspended the GSP+ facility of trade concessions which is tied to the human rights record of the recipient country.
3) UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon said that he is sending a group of experts to advise him on "The accountability concerns, possible breaches of international humanitarian law or abuses of human rights carried out during the conflict".)
4) On 19 May 2010, Phil Glendenning, Director of the Edmund Rice Centre in Australia, who had just returned from Sri Lanka issued a Media release[13] that the country was not safe for the deportation of asylum seekers, and called on the Australian government to suspend such returns.
- Given these developments, the Australian Government has suspended the processing of new asylum claims by Sri Lankan nationals for a period of three months and the processing of new asylum claims by Afghan nationals for a period of six months.
(There have been no ‘developments’ in Sri Lanka, except two rigged elections, one to re-elect the President, followed by the arrest and detention of his main political rival on unsubstantiated charges, and a Parliamentary Election which was so flawed that “The Program for Protection of Public Resources (PPPR)” conducted by the Sri Lankan Chapter of Transparency International said that it had received 200 complaints on the abuse of public resources during the General Election campaign. PPPR concluded (4.4.2010) “Therefore, it’s doubtful as to whether this election can be considered as a ‘free and fair’ election when taking into account the level of abuse of public resources”.
To claim that “given the recent developments’, implying an improvement in the abuse of human rights or governance, is simply incorrect.
- These suspensions will be reviewed at the end of their respective periods.
(No, they will have to be withdrawn right now, if Australia is to retain what little credibility it has left.
We are now days away from the end of this period where asylum seekers from Sri Lankan are concerned. However, when Senator Sarah Hanson-Young asked Senator Chris Evans, Minister of Immigration, a direct question, on 24 June 2010[14] as to whether this suspension will come to an end, it was clear from his response that despite a change at the top (the Prime Minister), there has neither been a change in policy or honesty. The horse keeps going in the same direction, only the rider has changed. Hence the absolute need for international pressure on the Australian government.)
- Asylum seekers currently on Christmas Island will continue to have their claims processed and will not be subject to the suspension.
(The entire problem of detention of asylum seekers in virtual prisons in Christmas Island and other so-called ‘detention centres’ in mainland Australia, is a serious breach of the UN Refugee Convention, signed and ratified by Australia. I will deal with this in a separate paper, Asylum seekers – Australia’s Illegal Action.
As for the comment about asylum seekers already in Christmas Island not being subjected to the recent decision, it is as absurd as is the decision to suspend asylum seeker claims lodged by the new arrivals. What exactly is the difference between asylum seekers already in Christmas Island and the recent arrivals? What if they got to Christmas Island a day earlier, two days earlier, or six months earlier? How does the duration of their stay in Christmas Island (or anywhere else) alter their right to have their visa applications processed? It is astounding that a supposedly responsible government should make these laughable statements.)
- The Australian Government will take into consideration the outcomes of the UNHCR's review of country situation in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan in the finalisation of information provided to decision-makers responsible for refugee status determinations.
(No, what the Australian government has done is illegal, whatever the findings of the UNHCR. The UN Refugee Convention has not stated that the UNHCR is the arbiter.
Incidentally, 105 of 247 Sri Lankan asylum seekers on the boat off the Indonesian port of Merak, did have UNHCR refugee cards, despite which they were held on the boat for 6 months[15], in violation of the UN Refugee Convention. Those who held these cards had ‘the necessary conditions for admission to a particular country’. Yet they were held there, and have just been removed, dragged off the boat, to one of the terrible detention centres in Tanjun Pinang, Indonesia, financed by Australia. The question can justifiably be asked as to what it means to hold a UNHCR refugee card, if the holder is denied refuge.
As I have pointed out, the UNHCR has published a damning report on Sri Lanka (The Country of Origin Research and Information – CORI Report[16]), the very month that the decision by the Australian government was made! Will the Australian government now reverse the decision? If not, why not? These are questions that will not go away. We will see to it that they do not, as long as international conventions are being flouted, by this or any other Australian government. If Australia’s name is being dragged into the gutter of moral and legal irresponsibility, protest we must, and will.
If to be critical of what the Australian government is doing is unpatriotic, so be it. I, for one, will not allow my own patriotism to Australia to be defined by how close I stand to the Australian flag, drenched with the tears, and now even the blood, of asylum seekers.)
- The Australian Government believes that asylum seekers should only be granted the right to live in Australia if they are genuinely in need of protection.
(What the Australian government “believes” is not the issue. The issue is what the Australian government has signed regarding the handling of asylum seekers i.e. the UN Refugee Convention.)
- These measures will ensure that Australia's refugee processing system continues to recognise those genuinely in need of our protection.
(Australia is in no position to judge who is ‘genuine’ and who is not. The UNHCR is the body, with the necessary expertise that must do this work. Australian bureaucrats and politicians in Canberra can hardly be an alternative to the UNHCR.
Let me clarify the ‘refugee processing system’ in Australia. An application for refuge is lodged by an asylum seeker who arrives by boat. It is looked at by an Immigration Officer. If he/she rejects it, it is looked at by another Immigration Officer, slightly more senior than the first. If he/she rejects it, that is it. Two Officers from the same office are hardly independent opinions. There is now only one more thing that can be done – a direct appeal to the Minister on humanitarian grounds. Whom does the Minister consult? The Immigration Officer! Not surprisingly, the Minister rarely, if ever, reverses what his officials have decided. It is a ‘home-and-home’ match, with not even the pretence of impartiality. That is ‘justice’ – Australia-style. It is not much different from President Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka.
The UN Convention does not distinguish between “genuine” and “non-genuine” asylum seekers. If they seek asylum, and have grounds for doing so, they are asylum seekers. As I have said, the UNHCR has set this out in the clearest possible language:- “An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country of origin, has applied for recognition as a refugee in another country, and is awaiting a decision on their application”[17].
Asylum seekers are not doing anything illegal. On the UN Refugee Convention and on Australian Law, it is clear that it is legal to seek asylum.)
- Irregular maritime arrivals claiming asylum will continue to be subject to mandatory detention, including those subject to the suspension.
(There is nothing called “Irregular …. arrivals”. Refugees and asylum seekers flee repressive and dangerous regimes. “Irregular” implies that there are “Regular” arrivals. There is no queue when people are fleeing murderous regimes.
As for “maritime arrivals”, the mode of arrival of refugees is irrelevant. They can come by boat, or plane, or walk (if there is an adjoining land mass). It has no relevance where seeking asylum is concerned. I find it amazing that the Australian government does not appreciate this simple fact.
An important point about ‘maritime arrivals’ is that where unauthorised entry or residence in Australia is concerned, asylum seekers who arrive by boat or plane are vastly outnumbered by people who overstay their visas. For example, in 2007-08, there were 48,500 visa overstayers, and only 1,476 unauthorised arrivals, of whom only 25 arrived by boat. The difference is that most of the visa overstayers were not ‘brown’ or ‘black’. This raises the question as to whether the recent declaration by the Australian government is racist. If it is, then it must be challenged, since it violates Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act.
As for ‘mandatory detention’, taking the Courts out of the equation is illegal – a violation of the Refugee Convention. “Mandatory” means that a judge has no power to decide on the validity or otherwise, of a claim for refuge or asylum. To detention he/she must go. It is a travesty of justice, unworthy of a civilized/democratic country.
This thoroughly irresponsible interference with the judicial system was introduced by the dreadful Howard (Liberal) government. It was opposed by the then Labor Opposition, and now, with breathtaking hypocrisy, it is being pursued by a Labor government. That is politics – Australia-style, not much different from politics in the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, as it likes to call itself.
There is not a scrap of evidence that mandatory detention achieves anything other than traumatizing an already traumatised people. It is inhuman, cruel and degrading. As such, it is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed and ratified by Australia which states:- Article 5:- “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
In addition, it is a violation of the UN Refugee Convention.
All that mandatory detention had done is to damage the standing of Australia. There is certainly no evidence that mandatory detention prevented asylum seekers from coming here, any more than capital punishment prevented people from committing crimes that could result in execution. It is naïve to believe that it does.
Incidentally, the new Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is a strong supporter of mandatory detention, however illegal it is. Amazingly, she is a lawyer!)
- The Government is also strengthening a range of law enforcement measures targeting people smugglers.
(People smugglers exist because there is a need for them – for people to flee barbaric regimes. People smugglers are not the problem; barbaric regimes are. It is governments that subject their people to gross violations of their basic human rights, and create people smugglers, that have to be targetted.
Ex-Prime Minister Rudd, says that “people smugglers are the scum of the earth” and “should rot in hell”. His vitriolic comments should be directed at those who create people smugglers, both in Sri Lanka, and right here in the country of which he was, till a few days ago, the Prime Minister. His vitriolic outburst is aimed at gathering some votes at the impending General Election – politicking – no more, no less, to show the voter how ‘tough he is on asylum seekers and in ‘protecting’ this country (from unarmed helpless people).
I have often felt that some of these Australian politicians will be completely at home in Sri Lankan politics. The game is the same, just the setting is different.)
- The Australian Government will crack down on people smuggling by introducing measures to stop the flow of funds and support to people smuggling ventures.
(It is more appropriate for Australia to “crack down” on regimes that force people to get into unseaworthy boats, pay huge sums of money they can ill afford, and embark on notoriously dangerous trips. Australia must distance itself from regimes that have been thrown out of the UN Human Rights Council (as Sri Lanka has been in 2008) for an abysmally poor record of human rights violations. Getting into bed with such regimes, or acting as their mouthpiece, is simply unacceptable.
If the Australian government is that concerned about people smugglers, then it must look into the factors that make people flee these dreadful regimes i.e. the “push-factors”. It is clear that Australia is disinclined to do this, for geopolitical, economic or other reasons.)
Stopping funds for ‘people smugglers
- Tough new powers will result in the deregistration of remittance dealers that facilitate access to funds for people smuggling ventures and other unlawful activities including money laundering.
A stronger regulatory regime for remittance dealers will ensure law enforcement agencies receive better financial intelligence, to enable disruption and deterrence of people smuggling.
The Government will also seek to expedite the passage of legislation that will significantly strengthen Australia's laws against people smuggling.
The Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill includes additional offences targeting those who finance or provide support for people smuggling activities as well as stronger penalties that recognise the seriousness of people smuggling offences.
(This is a very sinister decision. Behind the garb of blocking “funds for people smuggling ventures” is the ability to block, discourage or invoke fear in those who send money for the refugees. It enables the Police and others to swoop down on those who send money to refugees, asylum seekers and others in desperate need of help, and accuse them of sending money to ‘people smugglers’ or even ‘terrorists’.
The Bill is vague, to say the least. It is “The Anti-people Smuggling and Other Measures Bill”. What exactly is an “Other Measures Bill”? What other measures? It is open to a lot of abuse by the powers that be. It is similar to the notorious “Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)” in Sri Lanka. “Terrorism” can be anything from violence to no more than being critical of the government.
I am therefore seriously concerned about this Bill, and the possibility, indeed probability, of abuse.
Let me give you a possible case scenario. A student of mine, now a doctor, is in one of Rajapaksa’s concentration camps in Northern Sri Lanka (which Rajapaksa amusingly calls ‘welfare villages’). He calls me and asks for $1,000 to feed his starving wife and children in Jaffna, in the Sri Lankan North. Do I send it, or do I tell him to let his family starve? If I send it and he decides to send half the money to his family and use the rest to pay a people smuggler to get him and his family on a boat to Australia, am I now guilty, in the eyes if the Australian government, of financing ‘people smuggling’? Would there be a knock on my door by the Australian Federal Police? I bet there will be, on what I have just gone through – which I will set out below.
What fear (justifiable) can do, was shown a few weeks ago. An SBS[18] crew going to do a documentary on asylum seekers in Indonesia were asked whether they could carry $100 to be given to a pregnant woman in a detention centre who was ill. The request was refused for fear that it might contravene the recent Bill. That is the result, intended or not.
In the expanded version of this paper, I will set out what I have been subjected to, both abroad and here in Australia (where I have been a citizen for 35 years). The only reason for this harassment is that I have been critical of the GoSL. What the Sri Lankan government does is not of the slightest concern to me, but what the Australian government does, is of concern. As a citizen I have certain rights, and if these are being violated, it is a matter of serous concern to us all. If the Australian Police can knock on the door of my home to investigate a ‘complaint’ lodged by the High Commissioner of a 3rd world dictatorship, and it is found to be a bogus charge, then it is of concern. If the Police already have such powers, then to enhance these powers, as the new Bill has done, is of concern.
What I have briefly alluded to was before the proposed legislation, the ‘Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill’. If what I have described can be done by the Australian Federal Police ‘Counter-Terrorism Unit’, as it likes to call itself, and others in authority with the powers they already have, one can imagine what it will be after these sweeping powers are increased by legislation. If Australia has decided to become a Police State or a Fascist State, protest we must, and will.
I am therefore urging all Australians to see the writing on the wall, which this recent decision by their Australian government is a sign It is a sign of what Naomi Wolf calls in her outstanding book[19], a “fascist shift”.
I will skip the rest of this section, because it contains absurdities similar to what I have dealt with, and get on to the next.
Sri Lanka: transition from conflict
- President Mahinda Rajapaksa was re-elected in January 2010 following the first nation-wide election for many years and parliamentary elections took place on 8 April 2010.
(No, it was not a ‘nation-wide election’. According to non-government election monitors, only 52%of the country’s 14 million registered voters cast a ballot. This is the lowest voter turn-out in any election in that country. In the war-ravaged Northern Province, only 20 percent voted. The Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CFFE) reported that thousands of Tamil civilians in the North had been prevented from voting. Near the military-run prison camps in Manik Farm where 90,000 civilians are still illegally held, many lined up in long queues only to be told that they were not registered voters. The BBC reported[20] that poll monitors had said that “Many war-displaced Tamils in the north had been denied voting rights.”
Australia has a well informed Embassy in Colombo and it is ridiculous to claim that the government does not know all this.
Moreover, Gordon Weiss, an Australian, who has been with the UN for 14 years, has just returned to this country. He was the UN Spokesman in Sri Lanka. He is clearly someone who has a detailed knowledge of what is going on there. He resigned from the UN and returned to Australia in early 2010. He said he was now free to speak openly about the situation and did so candidly and unflinchingly to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)[21]. Interviewed by the ABC’s much-respected ‘Foreign Correspondent’ program on 9 February 2010[22], he said that “The Sri Lankan government said many things which were either intentionally misleading or were lies”.
If the Australian government wanted to know what was going on in Sri Lanka, there could have been no better person than Gordon Weiss. Was he contacted? I doubt it, since if he was, there is no way he would have said that Sri Lanka was a safe place for Tamil refugees to be returned to.
To refer to Rajapaksa as “President Rajapaksa” indicates that Australia is not in touch with what is going on in Sri Lanka. Mahinda Rajapaksa has gone well beyond this. He is not the ‘President’ but a ‘King’, appointed by himself and his brothers. When the ruler is a king, there are no citizens; only subjects. And subjects are bound to obey the king unquestioningly since monarchical infallibility was a belief that premised absolute monarchies.
The Sri Lankan Executive President, with sweeping powers, has been replaced by the rule of one family – Mahinda Rajapaksa, his three brothers and some 38 relatives – (there are estimates which are much higher than 38). I will detail this in an article to follow, Sri Lanka’s Totalitarian Regime.
The ‘King’ still holds the sweeping powers of the Executive Presidency bestowed on him by the 1977 Constitution. These are greater than any dictator anywhere in the world.
The Executive President of Sri Lanka (currently Rajapaksa, prior to him, my cousin, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga), is the Head of State, Head of the Executive and Government, Minister of Defence and any other Ministry he likes to take on. He is the Commander-in-Chief Armed Forces.
He can dissolve Parliament, and is not answerable to Parliament. He appoints, and can remove, the Prime Minister, all Ministers and Deputy Ministers. He appoints the Permanent Heads of all Ministries, the Heads of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, all Public Officers, the Attorney General, Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, all Judges of Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court. He is immune from legal action for anything done or omitted to be done by him, both in his official or private capacity, while he holds office.
The Sri Lankan President’s contempt for Parliament was shown by a former President, J.R.Jayawardene, who formulated these powers. At a press conference on 29 July, 1987, he was asked how he proposed to get a particularly unpopular legislation through Parliament. His response:- “Well, when I bring legislation to Parliament and Parliament does not pass it, I’ll dissolve Parliament. I don’t need a fresh mandate, Parliament may need it….”
Mahinda Rajapaksa, in addition to being the Executive President with these sweeping powers, is also the Minister of Defence, Finance and Planning, Ports and Aviation, and Highways. In all, he is directly responsible for 78 institutions. One, the Defence Ministry, is a family affair with his brother, Gotabaya, the Defence Secretary. Besides control of the Armed Forces, Police and Coast Guard, it has expanded its remit to take in Immigration and Emigration, as well as, curiously, the Urban Development Authority and the Land Reclamation and Development Corporation. It is, in fact, not ‘curious’ at all, since all of these can be a source of huge (unseen) income – commissions, bribes and the like.
Another Rajapaksa brother, Basil, is Minister of Economic development, and Senior Presidential Adviser, with oversight, among other things, of Wildlife Conservation and the Boards of both Investment and Tourism-promotion. He also runs a Presidential Task Force set up to develop the war-ravaged North and East. Note, again, the careful choice of potentially the most ‘lucrative’ portfolios.
We have already seen the visible evidence of invisible income – “big-time” in today’s language. Those who hold these portfolios and powers do not even take the trouble to conceal the financial gains. It is street talk in Colombo. Who cares? Certainly not the ruling family. They could not care less.
A fourth brother, the eldest, Chamal, is the Speaker. In the unlikely event that the President was to face impeachment, which would require a motion signed by at least half of the members of parliament, the Speaker would have to agree to entertain the motion. That will not happen.
The family now want a 2/3 majority in Parliament to change the Constitution. This majority is needed for a new Constitution. Since they were unable to get this at the ballot box, they will do so with a cheque book or sheer thuggery (as they have done before). Why a new Constitution?
One aim is to lift the present bar on Presidents serving more than two six-year terms. This means that Rajapaksa can be the President for another 12 years at least.
A second is to revise the 17th amendment to empower the President to appoint members of a number of important bodies, such as the Human-Rights Commission and Election Commission, and others covering the Police, Public service and the investigation of Corruption. This would defeat the purpose of the 17th Amendment which was to curtail Presidential power. It would also take power away from ethnic minorities, to whose representatives the 17th amendment gave a say in some appointments.
A third is to enable the President to take part in parliamentary proceedings. Far from weakening the “Executive Presidency”, as many have advocated, the reforms would in effect give Mr Rajapaksa some prime-ministerial trappings as well.
A fourth is to return political power to Parliament and the Prime Minister, and dismantle the Executive Presidency. Rajapaksa has catered for that too. Dismantling the Executive Presidency will be done after Rajapaksa’s Presidency (in 12 years or more), just in time for him to become Prime Minister with sweeping powers. Rajapaksa must think we are fools. We are not, not all of us.
Nothing seems to stand in the way of a long Rajapaksa raj. Moving in from the wings, is his son, Namal, a 22 year old law student, just elected to parliament in April 2010. He seems set to follow in his father’s and uncles’ footsteps.
The Rajapaksas hold 75% of the most important positions in the country, and are responsible for spending more than two thirds of the Nation’s budget. There is no comparable situation anywhere else in the world.
President Rajapaksa has appointed 85 Ministers and Deputy Ministers, the world’s largest. There are 5 Muslims, 4 Tamils and 76 Sinhalese. Among the Tamils is Vinayagamoorthy Mularitharan,(‘Colonel’ Karuna Amman), a convicted criminal who arrived in Britain on a false diplomatic passport, allegedly issued by Gotabaya Rajapakse, arrested, charged and jailed in Britain. In 1990 he executed 133 police officers who had surrendered to him in the East, murdered Muslims in two mosques, and was responsible for recruiting hundreds of child soldiers. Amnesty International urged the British Police to prosecute him for war crimes. Instead, he was sent back to Sri Lanka where President Rajapaksa immediately made him a Minister. This is the regime that Australia is in bed with).
The Statement goes on:-
• Progress is being made in tackling the challenging task of resettling hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens and rehabilitating their communities.
(No, progress is not being made. If it is, why is the GoSL so coy in letting all of us go and see the great work that is being done in ‘resettling hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens’? Why the strict censorship? Why restrict international observers, media and human rights groups from going to the area and checking out this wonderful job? The Australian government really needs to do some reading, unless, of course, it has a hidden agenda, which is barely ‘hidden’.
Let me quote the reports that were available, and also get some (mis)quoted figures right.
The UNHCR[23] estimates that when the military operations ended in May 2009, about 280,000 people were added to the existing population of 300,000 IDPs (Internally Displaced People i.e. refugees). So, there were more than half a million IDPs in northern Sri Lanka, not 280,000 as quoted by Amnesty International, and even by me in the numerous dvds I have recorded and released internationally.
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) stated[24] that, “…the Sri Lankan government had transferred approximately 280,000 civilians from the former conflict areas to camps in the north of Sri Lanka.”
The same report stated that, “significant protection concerns” remain “for both displaced and returning civilians, as well as for at least 11,500 suspected ex-combatants to whom the ICRC has no access and who themselves have no access to due legal process regarding their detention.”
To get back to the UNHCR report I have just referred to, it states that the majority of the IDPs who fled the offensive:- “live in closed camps in Vavuniya district, as well as in camps in Mannar, Jaffna and Trincomalee…….The IDPs originate mainly from the Mannar, Vavuniya, Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu and Jaffna districts in northern Sri Lanka, as well as from some areas in the east of the country.
Though the end of hostilities has paved the way for the voluntary return of displaced people, some key obstacles to return remain. For instance, many of the areas of return are riddled with mines and unexploded ordnance……. Other key obstacles to return include the need to re-establish administrative structures in areas formerly held by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; the destruction or damaged condition of public infrastructure and private homes; and the breakdown of the economy - including agriculture and fisheries.”
UNHCR expressed its hope that, due to recent progress, “a substantial number of IDPs will be able to return to their places of origin in the latter half of 2009, but a large portion of new IDPs are also likely to remain in the camps and with host families until well into 2010.”
The UNHCR expressing “hope” is not good enough, certainly not in Sri Lanka.
The International Crisis Group (ICG)[25] put this bluntly:- “the resettlement process has failed to meet international standards for safe and dignified returns. There has been little or no consultation with the displaced and no independent monitoring; many returns have been to areas not cleared of mines and unexploded ordnance; inadequate financial resources have been provided for those returning home; and the military continues to control people’s movements
Sri Lanka has made little progress in reconstructing its battered democratic institutions or establishing conditions for a stable peace. Eight months later, the post-war policies of President Mahinda Rajapaksa have deepened rather than resolved the grievances that generated and sustained LTTE militancy.”
More concerns were expressed by the United States[26] about land seizures by the government:- “….in the north and east. Significant amounts of land were seized during the war by the military to create security buffer zones around military bases and other high-value targets which the government called HSZ[27]. The declaration of HSZs resulted in a number of displaced persons, particularly in the Jaffna Peninsula, and rendered inactive approximately 40 square kilometers of agricultural lands. While the government discussed reducing the size of these HSZs towards the end of the year, there was no action taken by year's end.
Paramilitary actors were often cited as being responsible for other land seizures. While a legal process exists for private landowners to contest such seizures, in practice it proved very slow, and many victims did not take advantage of it for fear of violent reprisals by those who had seized the property in question.”
In February 2010, the European Union declared its intent to:- “suspend Sri Lanka’s preferential trade benefits” due to “significant shortcomings in Sri Lanka's implementation of international human rights conventions.”
In June 2010, a group of journalists in Colombo, many of them Sinhalese, took the trouble and the not inconsiderable risk of visiting the Tamil North to see whether what the GoSL claimed about rehabilitation was true. They found that it was completely untrue. Their very important publication (on the net) is cited later in this article.
We might well ask the Australian government from where it is getting its information, when serious concerns have been expressed by the UNHCR, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, European Union, International Crisis Group, the US Department of State, and even Sinhalese investigators in Colombo. Has the Australian government got some secret information that has not been disclosed i.e. that all of the organisations I have cited are wrong (or are lying) and that “Progress is being made (by Sri Lanka) in tackling the challenging task of resettling hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens and rehabilitating their communities”?
If this is what Australia is trying to do, it will have an up-hill battle. It is just absurd to suggest that the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, his Deputy Julia Gillard, now his successor, and their senior Ministers were (are) unable to access this information, when a doctor of medicine working with no facilities, no staff and only equipped with a computer was able to do so? This is the age of the internet, of mobile phones, of video devices, that can instantly transmit information, and break all barriers that existed some time ago. One does not need to go to Sri Lanka. To switch on the computer is all that is needed.)
- Of the nearly 300,000 civilians displaced by the conflict, nearly 200,000 have either returned to their own homes or are living with host families.
(No they have not. “Nearly 200,000” have not returned to their homes, because they have been destroyed by the GoSL, and even their lands taken over and given to Sinhalese ‘settlers’ from the South. The evidence is cited above and in that crucial report from Sinhalese reporters I have referred to, a part of which I will reproduce below.
Does “living with host families” constitute ‘resettlement’? If it does, Australia has an interesting concept of ‘resettlement’. Many of us are familiar with English.
I have already given the evidence that what the Australian government claims is absolutely incorrect. To put this bluntly, it is a barefaced lie.)
- The Sri Lankan Government and humanitarian agencies are providing support for returnees through the provision of basic needs such as shelter, as well as assistance to help rebuild livelihoods.
(No they are not. Australian politicians (and others) are simply being the mouthpiece of a regime that has perfected the art of lying. Let alone ‘providing support’, a number of International humanitarian agencies have been either denied access to the area, or have very restricted access. I have cited the necessary evidence to document this).
- Living conditions for around 80,000 internally displaced people remaining in camps continue to be difficult but reduced numbers have relieved the problem of overcrowding.
(It is not the ‘living conditions’ for 80,000 people that are relevant. What is relevant is that 80,000 people, including thousands of children, are being held illegally, in violation of International Conventions and UN Principles. This will be dealt with later when I set out the current situation in Sri Lanka. It will also be set out in detail in an upcoming paper, Concentration camps for Tamils in Sri Lanka, to be published shortly.
- We have responded generously to the humanitarian challenges facing Sri Lanka and continue to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to move down the path of peace and reconciliation.
(That is a downright lie. From a global perspective, Australia is one of the most ‘non-generous’. The number of refugees taken by Australia from Sri Lanka, and elsewhere, is abysmally poor. Only one refugee is taken for every 1,600 people in Australia (per capita GDP $35,677, the 13th highest in the world), while one is taken in for every 40 in a miserably poor country such as Tanzania (per capita GDP $1,263, 144 from the top). If Australia does not want to take in refugees, the least it can do is not to lie about it.
When did “encouraging” a fascist dictatorship “to move down the path of peace and reconciliation” ever work? The Australian government is joking, and the Sri Lankan government has worked this out. They are not stupid - just barbaric).
- Given the evolving situation in Sri Lanka, a suspension in the processing of asylum claims from Sri Lankan nationals is appropriate.
(It is not a question of whether it is “appropriate” or not. The question is whether it is legal – which it is not.
Opting out of the UN Refugee Convention
Australia can, of course, opt out of the UN Refugee Convention which is provided for in Article 44 of the Convention:- “Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations”.
That is certainly possible, but until that is done, the Articles of the UN Refugee Convention cannot be violated. If they are, protest we must, and will.
The possibility of taking Australia to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as provided for in Article 38 of the Refugee Convention will have to be explored. Whether the case is lost or won is of little importance. The shame of being dragged before the ICJ is enough.
If the Refugee Convention has been violated, it can be challenged in the ICJ, as is permitted in Article 38 of the Convention:- Article 38 Settlement of disputes:- “Any dispute between parties to this Convention relating to its interpretation or application, which cannot be settled by other means, shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one of the parties to the dispute”.
As is not unusual with these UN documents, they cannot be enforced. For example, Article 38 states “any dispute between parties”. Who are these ‘parties’? Australia is clearly one, but who is the other? The Refugees? But refugees are not a ‘party’.
It is a well known fact that individuals cannot take a country to the ICJ. It has to be another country that has signed the Convention. Moreover, it cannot be any country – it has to be one that is in dispute on the application of the Convention. Such a country does not exist. So, in effect, Article 38 is nonsense.
However, as I have already indicated, the Australian government can be charged in Australian Courts for violating the Racial Discrimination Act.
Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, and words must have meaning. If they are not, then these Conventions and Acts will lose credibility, and the Rule of Law will descend to the Rule of the Jungle. The problem is that the wording of some of these Conventions is such that no one can be held accountable. Hence the Rule of the Jungle prevails.
Is it safe for Sri Lankan Tamil (or Afghan) asylum seekers to be sent back?
Of course it is not safe. As I have said, the evidence comes from Australia’s own travel advice to people going to these countries, issued from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, no less.
I can only speak with authority on Sri Lanka. Most, if not all, of the Sri Lankan asylum seekers who are affected by the recent decision are Tamil males. Is it safe for them to be sent back? Here is what the US State Department reported in March 2010:-
“outside of the conflict zone the overwhelming majority of victims of human rights violations, such as extrajudicial killings and disappearances, were young male Tamils[28]”. The Report goes on, “Tamils throughout the country, but especially in the conflict-affected north and east, reported frequent harassment of young and middle-aged Tamil men by security forces and paramilitary groups.”
Is the Australian government claiming that the US State Department is lying? If it is, it will be an uphill battle to convince the rest of the world that Australia is right and that the Human Rights Reports of the US State Department, which has international credibility, is wrong. Australia seems to have an inflated opinion of its credibility.
Amnesty International (AI) comment on the 9.4.2010 Australian government action
AI, the Nobel Prize-winning human rights organization of international repute, got it right. Its Australian sector responded immediately (9 April 2010): -
“Don’t use asylum seekers as political footballs”
“The Australian Government has announced a blanket suspension on the processing of new asylum claims by Afghan and Sri Lankan nationals.
This is an appalling act of political point scoring and fundamentally inconsistent with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
The situation for many groups in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan continues to be tenuous if not downright dangerous. Activists, journalists, women and unaccompanied minors among others still face significant risks.
The Australian Government is singling out these vulnerable people simply to score political points - we need your help to end this outrageous discrimination and reverse this decision.
Take action now
Tell our government that it’s time to rise above political point-scoring and uphold fundamental human rights.
Call on the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Immigration and Citizenship to:
- Reverse their decision to suspend the processing of new asylum applications by Sri Lankan and Afghan nationals.
- Respect the rights of all refugees and asylum seekers regardless of where they come from.
- Stop over-riding the rights of the world’s most vulnerable people for political purposes.
What we want Australia to do
The Australian Government has a rigorous process of assessing asylum claims according to the internationally agreed criteria set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Under that process, individuals who are found to be at risk of torture, persecution or death, are offered our protection. Those people who are not found to have genuine claims are returned to their country of origin. As Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, that process should stand.”
Some extraordinary Australians, and ‘Others’
In a very bleak scene here in Australia, the outspoken people who have voiced their concerns are only a dozen – Pamela Curr (Asylum Seeker Resource Centre), Ian Rintoul and Frederica Steen (Refugee Action Coalition), Andrew Bartlett (a former Senator and leader of the Democratic party, now in the Greens party), Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens party), the Socialist Alliance and Green Left that have campaigned tirelessly, Julian Burnside QC, Labor For Refugees, Petro Georgiou MP[29] (Liberal) – one of the very few to oppose what his Prime Minister John Howard was doing to refugees, Fr Jim Party, Fr Pancras Jordon and Peter Arndt (from the Catholic Archdiocese in Brisbane), Bruce Haigh (former Australian Deputy High Commissioner in Sri Lanka), and David Marr, the outstanding journalist from The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper who has written extensively on asylum seekers.
In a different category are people like Denise Ireland, a nurse who worked with me three decades ago. She has now retired and is almost crippled with serious rheumatoid arthritis. What money she can save, she regularly sends me, “You can do what you want with this to help the people who need help in the refugee camps or elsewhere”. She has sent hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars. How do you describe people like this? They must surely be the “salt of the earth”.
In yet another category are Madhuni Kumarakulasinghe, a science teacher, who in the prime if her life, has put her job on hold to work on asylum seekers. She is in contact with detainees in Christmas Island (and earlier on in Merak), on a daily basis. She lives on love and air. There is Saradha Ramanathan, who has put her family on hold, to be totally involved.
Madhuni, Sarada and Ian went to Merak in December 2009 to carry toys, books, concern and love, to the Tamil refugees on that boat. Pamela, Saradha and Ian returned to Jakarta to see what could be done to help the refugees get out of the hell-hole they were in. They were, detained by the Indonesian Police, with the Australian Embassy in Jakarta refusing to help these caring Australian citizens. They have been banned by the Indonesian authorities from entering Indonesia for 5 years! How do I categorise these exceptional people? ‘Human beings’, as distinct from ‘others’.
As for the expatriate Tamils, the income of many being ten times, perhaps fifty times, more than that of Denise Ireland, to get five dollars from them to feed the hungry Tamil children in the North of Sri Lanka, or even to do something about their shattered limbs and lives, is almost impossible. I categorise them as “non-Denise Irelands”. They are part of NATO (No Action Talk Only).
The Greens party, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, is a breath of fresh air that flows through the dreadful Australian political scene. She said that the Federal Government's decision to freeze certain asylum seeker applications is a clear breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and she is concerned it will lead to children being held in detention, and that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd simply cannot be trusted to handle the asylum seeker issue. Here is what she said:
"This is a red-neck solution from Prime Minister Rudd, it is a quick fix, in time for election time and it proves that Prime Minister Rudd is irresponsibly dangerous when it comes to managing the issues, concerns and needs of the world's most vulnerable people who arrive on Australia's doorstep. He has proven that he is a coward when it comes to standing up for what is right. He's simply bowing to the pressure of Tony Abbott and the Opposition and following them down the low road of electoral politics that was so well laid out by John Howard."
David Marr’s absolute condemnation of Australia’s handling of asylum seekers is in his book, Dark Victory[30]. He has written extensively on the subject and fronted up on TV. His integrity, honesty and basic decency were there for all to see.
Australia, indeed the world, needs more of these decent people. If they are no longer being created, they will have to be cloned!
Australia’s shameful record, particularly at election-time
As I have said, Australians are some of the finest people on this planet who have made this country one of the finest to live in. That is why I came here 35 years ago, and stayed. I did not have to come here.
The blot on this fine country is its political leaders, some of whom are dreadful, outdone only by those in Sri Lanka. Adding to this is the despicable scare-mongering media, “Here another asylum seeker boat coming in”: “This is the 5th boat this year” etc.
The dreadful Australian politicians
The worst of the Australian Prime Ministers was the last, John Howard (Liberal). His racism was not even thinly disguised. He went to the extent of using a fabricated photograph allegedly showing asylum seekers throwing their children overboard, asking with feigned concern, “Do we want people like that in this country?”
I refer to refugees rescued by the Norwegian ship, Tampa, and brought to Australia (The Tampa crisis). This supposed ‘border protection’, and “protecting the country from undesirable people”, based on a downright lie, got him another term in office. I will deal with this in the expanded version if this article.
Australian ‘detention centres’
There are a number of detention centres (prisons) for refugees in Australia, some open, some opened and closed, some opened, closed and about to reopen. It is about as chaotic as is Australia’s policy (if there is one), on handling asylum-seekers.
Some of the most notorious have been in Baxter, South Australia, Curtin in the remote north of Western Australia, and in the even more remote tiny Pacific Island, Nauru. All of these have been closed, due to public pressure,. However, Curtin has just reopened, and, Tony Abbott (the Liberal leader, a clone of John Howard), says that if elected to power in the up-coming election, will reopen Nauru.
Others are open. There is one in Christmas Island, the “Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (with about 1000 Sri Lankan Tamils at time of writing), Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (Sydney), Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre, (Melbourne), Port Augusta “Residential Housing”, (South Australia)), Perth Immigration Detention Centre, (Western Australia), and Darwin Immigration Detention facility – (Northern Territory).
I will deal with these dreadful places in a separate article. Here I will deal with Christmas Island and Curtin, because they are involved in the current mess.
The treatment of detainees in Nauru was so bad that the Australian voters decided to throw out the Howard (Liberal) government, Howard even losing his seat in parliament.
The incoming Kevin Rudd (Labor) decided to close Nauru (2008) – but opened it in Indonesia!
Tony Abbott (Liberal) says that if he replaces Rudd in the 2010 Election, he will reopen Nauru. This ‘Howard- clone’ seems to have learnt nothing from the past.
Christmas Island Detention Centre
In 2007, the Department of Immigration finished the construction of an Immigration Reception and Processing Centre on Christmas Island. The centre, which contained about 800 beds, cost over $400 million to build and at least $30 million a year to run.
A facility built to house about 800 people, now has more than 2,000, with the numbers increasing as more arrive to accommodation that is simply not there. In a telephone call to Christmas Island last week, I gathered that new arrivals are now housed in tents with about 35 in each, and in a large number of ‘metal boxes’ “lorry tents”, for lack of a better place.
The overcrowding in Christmas Island (which has been known for months), has suddenly been noticed by the authorities, and some of those whose applications for ‘processing’ have been put on hold in the new ‘Statement’, are being moved to the (re-)opened Curtin Air Force base, now a detention place yet again.
Curtin detention centre
Located 40km from Derby, West Australia, where temperatures in summer average are a sizzling 42˚C, it is more than 2,000km north of Perth. This remote facility will house the hundreds of Afghan and Sri Lankan men whose applications for refugee status have been suspended for six months and three months respectively. The first batch is already there.
Curtin was a hell-hole. The man in charge was a psychopath. There were allegations of severe bullying by staff and evidence that some detainees were kept in darkened isolation rooms. Adults and children sewed their lips together in protest. When it shut in 2002, Curtin's chequered past included a string of riots, self-harm, assaults, fires and even a mass escape.
After visiting Curtin in 2000, the then Human Rights Commissioner Chris Sidoti and Sydney University law lecturer Mary Crock said aspects resembled a concentration camp.
Refugee workers and many others across the human rights spectrum were appalled by the decision to reopen Curtin. Amnesty International immediately reacted, stating that “Curtin was closed for a reason”.
Perth-based advocate Jack Smit from ‘Project SafeCom’ said, "Curtin was a torture centre under the Howard government. We are unbelievably nervous today." He said reopening it for people whose applications weren't even being progressed was a recipe for trouble and "gravely in breach of human rights law":- "It raises the notion of rejects being bundled together -- and Derby happens to be the hellhole of all detention centres where torture and abuse happened, as found by the Human Rights Commission".
Pamela Curr from the Asylum-Seeker Resource Centre said that Curtin was so isolated that it was difficult to monitor:- "This is a tragedy. We remember Curtin last time, and even with a different government and a different service provider, it will still be 28 hours from Perth and about as isolated as you can get, They could have chosen Darwin, but they have deliberately chosen the most isolated, the most rundown and the most horrible place in Australia. That a Labor government would do that is shocking."
The reason why Curtin was chosen when there were more accessible and humane places in which to put the asylum seekers, was to show the Australian voter how ‘tough’ the Rudd government was with asylum seekers. The unstated boast is – ‘what (dreadful things) you in the Opposition can do to asylum seekers, we in government can do worse. Just watch us. We will send them to the Curtin detention centre’.
Here is the evidence. Immigration Minister Chris Evans (one of those who signed the recent decision) said that the isolation of Curtin was one of the reasons it was ideal. It is political opportunism of a disgraceful degree.
While politicians are moving human beings as though they were inanimate objects to score political points, basic human rights of people whose only crime is that they were born Tamils or Afghans are being violated, as are International Conventions which Australia has signed, and the name of Australia is being taken to the gutter of moral irresponsibility.
It is of significance that in a recent Australian Red Cross survey of 1,000 people, it revealed a lack of understanding about the law concerning refugees. This will be explored further in later Red Cross surveys.
The boats will continue to come, since the source of the problem, the barbarism in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, has not been looked into, let alone challenged.
The situation in Sri Lanka
The Tamil North
The findings of Reporters from the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) 2 June 2010[31]
This is the Report I was waiting for before publishing this paper. These are the ‘on the spot’ findings of Reporters from the Sinhalese South, many of them Sinhalese, who recently visited the Tamil areas and whose integrity, honesty and reliability have never been in doubt. The full report is on the net but I will reproduce sections of it here for those who read the printed version of this publication. It was the much-needed information to see how much of what the Sri Lankan Government claims is actually true.
WSWS reporters visit the devastated Sri Lankan town of Kilinochchi
“One year after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Sri Lankan government claims that life is returning to normal in the war-ravaged Vanni region. But as our reporting team found during their recent visit to Kilinochchi, that is far from the case. Tens of thousands of civilians who lost everything during the fighting have been “resettled” in the area with little government assistance…..…….When the area was finally overrun in May 2009, the army rounded up more than a quarter of a million civilians, many of whom were injured, sick and famished, and herded them into detention camps.
The internees were only released from last (2009) December onwards in response to international and domestic pressure. In the meantime, the military had turned Kilinochchi into an army town with plans for a permanent occupation and the construction of major permanent bases. Former residents found the town devastated and have been forced to eke out an existence as best they can.
Our reporters visited Kilinochchi town and the villages of Poonahari, 26 kilometres to the west, and Vattakachchi, 15 kilometres to the east. They conducted their work under difficult circumstances, as the media generally cannot operate freely in the town. The photos are taken from a bus, but give an indication of the makeshift conditions under which people are living in the Vanni.
The first thing that strikes you about the situation in Kilinochchi is that you find more soldiers than civilians in the town. They are in uniform and civvies, carrying weapons or just moving here and there. People can only travel to Kilinochchi….. by passing through military camps, checkpoints and patrolling soldiers.
Soldiers ….keep a close eye on everyone’s movements.
The buildings in Kilinochchi town were destroyed last year. Heaps of debris have since been removed about 50 metres from the main road. The traders who have returned are renovating or rebuilding their shops, which were damaged during the war, at their own expense. These are small shops and there are only a few customers. Most of the eating houses are run by the army, catering for people travelling through the town.
People’s land and buildings that were previously occupied by the LTTE are now occupied by the military. A vast area in the southern section of the town has been fenced with barbed wire. Residents think it will be used to erect a military complex.
Former detainees have been sent here almost without any assistance. One person explained: “We are living here abandoned by all. The government said it would provide us with houses, employment and other facilities. It has not even given us clean drinking water, apart from what the relief agencies have supplied. Nobody has come to see our plight. There is no difference between staying in the detention camps and living here. The conditions are the same in both places.”
Many of the resettled people live in 10-by-10 feet huts with tin sheets provided by some non-government organisations. Other people are living in tents that are the same size. There are no separate rooms for sleeping or getting dressed. The floors have been leveled with mud. As there are no toilet facilities, people are using open spaces. Some families have used tin sheets to make roofs for their damaged houses.
People have been able to survive without going hungry only because the World Food Program (WFP) is providing food[32]. Many people don’t have even instruments like knives, equipment to clean their hands, or lamps for daily use. They have to look for bottles to make kerosene oil lamps, and search for water because the wells are not cleaned.
The Kilinochchi district was famous for agriculture and fishing. The large Iranaimadu tank (artificial lake) mainly supplied irrigation for several thousand acres of agricultural land. The tank is now under the military’s control. Water has not yet been fully released for farmers. A few farmers have begun cultivation but they do not have tractors or other basic equipment. Many do not have even a mammoty (a type of spade). Fishermen are not allowed to fish in the tank.
Poonahari village has been devastated, like other areas in the Vanni. The debris from destroyed houses, such as bricks and wood, has been used to erect military checkpoints that monitor the local coastline. One resident commented: “The military checkpoints are made out of the wood and sheets from our homes.”
Students are generally attending schools but there is a serious lack of teachers and equipment. Teachers have to travel a long distance from Jaffna or Vavuniya. At Poonahari, the Vikneswara School, which previously conducted classes up to the advanced level, is now occupied by the military, so students must walk to another school five kilometres away.
The military has also occupied Poonahari’s government hospital. As there are no longer any hospital facilities, people have to beg someone in the army camps to take any seriously ill patients to Kilinochchi in a military vehicle for treatment.
In Vattakachchi village there is no hospital and no school, and the people live in tents. The houses were destroyed during the war. The Vattakachchi and Ramanathapuram schools remain occupied by the military.
Billions of rupees are urgently needed to rebuild the Kilinochchi district for proper human habitation. But the Colombo government is not interested in rebuilding the conditions of ordinary people. Its treatment of war-devastated people is a continuation of decades of discrimination against Tamils”. (End of Report)
I have not the slightest hesitation in accepting this Report from people who have no axe to grind or a barrow to push. I am more than confident of their integrity and reliability.
The conclusion is that what the GoSL says is happening in the North – reconstruction and rehabilitation - is a downright lie.
In the country as a whole
What has been established in the country as a whole is a fascist dictatorship, run by President Rajapaksa, his brothers and relatives.
The Presidential Election (January 2010)
The International Crisis Group (ICG) stated that since the end of the ‘war’, “President Rajapaksa’s primary interest has been to consolidate his power”. ICG argues that this is reflected in the decision to call early presidential elections in January 2010[33].
The election witnessed a gross misuse of power by the government, and escalating violence, much of it unleashed by the governing (Rajapaksa’s) party. CNN stated that there were “more than 700 reports of violence ahead of the election”[34]
The New York Times[35] “election observers and advocacy groups have questioned the fundamental fairness of the campaign, accusing Mr. Rajapaksa of using state resources to run his campaign. State-owned news media all but shut out opposition candidates.”
President Rajapaksa’s political opponent, ex-General Sarath Fonseka arrested
Soon after the Presidential election, military police arrested General Sarath Fonseka, the former Army Commander, who dared to contest him in the Presidential election. Al Jazeera cited[36] defence officials as indicating the arrest was “on charges of plotting to overthrow the country’s government”, of which there was no evidence. The BBC[37] stated that “just hours before his arrest, the General said he was prepared to give evidence in an international court on any war crime charges against the state.”
After Fonseka lost the election, “at least 53 supporters of Gen Fonseka, many of them serving or retired military officials”[38] were arrested. On 17 March 2010, the second of two court-martials convened to try Fonseka were adjourned. A spokesman for Fonseka told the BBC that “it was a delaying tactic aimed at preventing him from campaigning for 8 April general elections.”
Richly though he deserved arrest for the war crimes that he had committed as the Army Commander, so did Rajapaksa’s brother, Gotabaya, the Defence Secretary, and President Rajapaksa himself, who is the Minister of Defence, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the Executive President. What was done (and is still in progress), was to get the message across, loud and clear, that Rajapaksa was not to be challenged, and if he is, the consequences would be serious. Fonseka is still in custody, learning this the hard way.
I have just seen an extraordinary tirade by Gotabaya Rajapaksa on the BBC’s Hard Talk[39] program. He said that if Fonseka says that he (Gotabaya Rajapaksa) gave the order to shoot the Tamil Tigers who had surrendered, he will be hanged. In a clandestine telephone call by an international reporter to Fonseka (in custody), he clearly stated that the order to execute those who had surrendered came from Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Gotabaya Rajapaksa is most certainly a Fuehrer in the making – perhaps already made. The US should round up this US citizen before he has a US ‘Green Card’ holder (Fonseka) executed.
Parliamentary elections 8 April 2009
The parliamentary elections were conducted with one of the candidates (Fonseka) leading a political party, incarcerated in detention.
The ‘election’ was a farce. The Guardian stated[40]:- “Local and international monitors have logged nearly 400 incidents of election-related violence. More than 50 have involved firearms. About two thirds of complaints are against the ruling UPFA. Opposition politicians accused the government of misusing state resources to gain an unfair advantage in the polls and said the media had been intimidated.”[41].
As would be expected, Rajapaksa’s party won 117 of the 225 seats in parliament and the main opposition party won 46 seats making it unlikely to give Rajapaksa the two thirds majority he needed to make ‘constitutional changes’ i.e. entrench himself even more firmly in power, but has taken the steps to ‘correct’ this.
Ominously Rajapaksa when asked, at a Press Conference, about the two thirds majority, said that there always were the opposition MPs, indicating almost certain bribery or intimidation for them to cross the floor as happened after the last election in 2005.
As I have stated earlier, only 52% of people voted, the lowest percentage since Independence in 1948.
That is ‘Democracy’ Sri Lankan style. Australia describes this as: "Given the evolving situation in Sri Lanka, a suspension in the processing of asylum claims from Sri Lankan nationals is appropriate”. “Evolving situation” it certainly is. An ‘evolving Totalitarian State’ is a more accurate description.
A new parliament
Yes, there is a new parliament in Sri Lanka, made up of people whom one of the widely read newspapers described more accurately than I can. The Sunday Leader in an editorial just before the Election set out what was on offer to the Sri Lankan voters.
“None of the individual contenders, political parties or opportunistic coalitions are worthy of our respect or our vote. Together they comprise the most mind-boggling array of crooks, thugs, conmen, hypocrites, unprincipled racists, rapists, drug dealers, money launderers, and general all-round scum that is without parallel elsewhere in the world. Other nations have their share of such undesirables, no doubt, but among them are a handful of honest, sincere, principled folk who have distanced themselves from the corrupt majority. Not so in miserable Sri Lanka.”
These are the parliamentarians who have been elected and the government they have formed. These are the people that the Australian government, and others, trust to ‘settle the problems’ in Sri Lanka! Are these the “evolving circumstances” the Australian government refers to? It has to be – since this is the reality in Sri Lanka.
Rajapaksa’s totalitarian regime
There is no question that what is being established is a fascist dictatorship, or worse, a totalitarian regime, run by President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his family (reportedly some 38 of them – although I have seen estimates that are ten times higher).
The regime tolerates no opposition, or even questioning. The media are silenced by government hooligans and thugs, or self-censored, for reasons of safety. There is widespread corruption from the top downwards.
The Sunday Leader, about the only English newspaper critical of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s autocratic rule, was unremittingly bleak. Its editorial after the General Election, entitled “Democracy is dead,” declared that rule by “just one party, or more accurately, one family” had triumphed. “And the country’s citizens have just one choice, either demonstrate their loyalty, obedience and gratitude to the ruling family or risk detention, death or worse the utter irrelevance of powerlessness”.
Are these the ‘evolving circumstances’ that the Australian government has referred to in the Statement on 9 April 2010?
Media censorship
There is a strictly enforced media censorship, and a silencing of criticism. Since 2006, hundreds of people, including politicians and journalists, have been killed or made to ‘disappear’ by pro-government death squads. Sri Lanka is one of the most dangerous places for independent journalists. Sri Lanka was ranked 165th out of 173 countries in Reporters Without Borders 2008 Press Freedom Index. This is the lowest ranking of any democratic country. The situation is getting worse, as the regime has more things to hide.
Emergency Regulations
For nearly 39 years, Sri Lanka has had serious repressive Laws and Regulations – the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the Public Security Ordinance and several Emergency Regulations (ERs). Amnesty International in a series of publications, has expressed serious concerns about these, the ERs in particular.
Emergency Regulations give the President extraordinary powers - to ban public meetings and protests, censor the media, outlaw strikes, sack workers, detain people without charge and mobilize the military in strike-breaking operations, and much more. President Rajapaksa used these powers last October (2009) to ban industrial action by petroleum, electricity, water and port workers.
ERs have to be passed by Parliament every month. What is very worrying is that despite the end of the war, ERs are still in place, and even extended. In the past year, the Rajapaksa government has used these Regulations to crack down on journalists, political opponents, trade unionists, and anyone who is critical of the government
“Emergency Regulations” have just been renewed, a year after the ‘war’ ended. The question is “What is the ‘Emergency’?
The Australian government has conveniently decided to ignore the fact that these highly repressive Acts, Laws and Regulations are in place in Sri Lanka, putting Australia’s credibility on the line.
A Military / Police State
The Sri Lankan Armed Forces (99% Sinhalese), 170,000 strong, is larger than the combined armed forces of Australia, Malaysia and the Philippines. After the ‘end’ of the war, this massive Force was increased to 200,000, and now to 230,000. The question is why an increase in the Armed Forces is needed if there is ‘peace’. It is clearly to run a military/police State under the dictatorship of President Rajapaksa.
The whole security apparatus has been kept in place, despite the end of the fighting. No troops have been demobilised. In fact, a permanent military occupation is being established in the North and East of the island.
The government has also maintained all of the police state measures built up over a quarter century of war. This apparatus is being kept in place not just to suppress the country’s Tamil minority but the Sinhalese poor, as the Rajapaksa government prepares to impose far-reaching austerity measures after the 8 April 2010 parliamentary election.
During the past four years of war, Rajapakse has used his sweeping executive powers to create a ruling cabal of relatives, aides, generals and incompetent bureaucrats. He has flouted the constitution and the Supreme Court on several occasions, including failing to appoint a Constitutional Council to oversee government appointments.
Rajapaksa’s ruling coalition claims that it wants “a strong government” to create economic prosperity. Why a ‘strong government’ is needed to create prosperity, of all things, is unclear. It is more likely that what is being sought is to entrench a police state to ram through a devastating assault on the living standards of working people.
The economic crisis
In order to appreciate the nonsense that Australia and many other countries are claiming about Sri Lanka, it is important to know the economic situation and the major contribution that foreign aid makes to enable this totalitarian regime to do what it is doing to its citizens – Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims.
The country has been heavily in debt for years, but insists on having one of the largest military forces, per capita, in the world. The reason for maintaining, indeed expanding, this massive military and police force after the end of the armed conflict, is sinister. I will set this out, since the answer will not come from the Sri Lankan government.
The Rajapaksa government (elected November 2005) went on a spending spree to finance the war on the LTTE, crushing it, and also slaughtering upward of 40,000 Tamil and Muslim civilians – a massacre that ended in May 2009, and the President announced “victory” and the end of the war.
Despite this, a year later, (June 2010), the Armed Forces have gone from 175,000, to 200,000, to 230,000 with a declared intention of getting this up to 300,000. The question is why the military should be substantially increased when there is no war.
The Defence budget in 2010, a year after the end of the armed conflict, to ‘defend’ the country from a non-existent enemy, is Rs 202 billion ($US 1.8 billion), 21 % of the total expenditure of Rs 974 billion to government ministries.
In July 2009, with the government facing bankruptcy, Sri Lanka was forced to beg for an IMF loan of $US 2.6 billion, to ward off a balance of payments crisis, having earlier boasted that it never will! The IMF released two installments but withheld the third in February 2010 because the government failed to indicate how it would rein in the budge deficit, which reached 9.7% of GDP in 2009. The IMF demanded a reduction to 7% in 2009 (which was not met), 6% in 2010 (which will not be met), and 5% in 2011 (which will certainly not be met).
There has been a marked increase in public debt with repayments in 2010 of Rs 767 billion, 44 % of the total budget expenditure of Rs 1,780 billion.
Last year (2009), government debt reached an incredible Rs 4.1 trillion, of which Rs 1.8 trillion was foreign debt, a 22% rise. Sri Lanka’s Central Bank annual report stated: “The ratio of debt service to government revenue increased further to 117.5% from 90.5%”. Total debt servicing rose by 39% to Rs 825.7 billion in 2009, including a massive interest payment of Rs 309.7 billon which comprised 26% of total expenditure.
Recently, (June 2010), Ernesto May, the World Bank Director of South Asia launching the Economic Update 2010 in Colombo said that Sri Lanka’s debt was the second highest[42] in South Asia, increasing from 81% of GDP in 2008 to 86% in 2009.
Unable to implement the IMF austerity measures without facing a massive anti-government backlash from voters, Rajapaksa repeatedly delayed the budget for 2010 (due in November 2009) till he was safely re-installed as President (January 2010), and his government re-elected (April 2010).
Finally in early June 2010, the government presented to Parliament the expenditure estimates as part of an Appropriation Bill for 2010. The two largest budget items were Defence and Debt repayment. The necessary cuts will be made elsewhere, in particular, a freeze on wages, cuts in pensions and welfare benefits, and a slashing of funds for health and education. This will be seen when the budget is finally brought down on 29 June, 2010.
There is already evidence for this in the recent presentation to Parliament. The allocation for the Rehabilitation Ministry was slashed from Rs 4 billion to Rs 2 billion. The result will be that thousands of refugees in the North and East will continue to lack homes and essential services.
It is therefore arrant nonsense for the Australian government to claim in the 9 June 2010 Statement that “progress is being made in tackling the challenging task of resettling hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens and rehabilitating their communities”.
Allocations for Health and Education were Rs 52 and 46 billion respectively, a total of Rs 10 billion less than for 2009. (The allocation for 2009 was itself Rs 12 billion less than for 2008). Is this the ‘evolving situation’ that the Australian government refers to?
In May 2010, Sri Lanka gave an undertaking to the IMF that it would considerably reduce recurrent spending by cutting government subsidies to the Ceylon Electricity Board, Petroleum Corporation, Central Transport Board, Railways, and Postal services. This can be achieved only by axing jobs, cutting wage and increasing prices.
Well aware that such measures will provoke massive opposition and even strikes by working people, Rajapaksa has retained the huge Police State apparatus to crush any form of opposition. This is what a Police State does to its people irrespective of ethnicity.
In addition to the Government’s fiscal profligacy, there is rampant corruption all the way to the very top, waste and absolute incompetence in governance.
This is the country that Australia claims is “a country in transition after two decades of conflict, with hopes for a further improvement and stabilization of conditions”. This is not only arrant nonsense but downright lies in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Facing an economic collapse, large area of Sri Lanka are ‘up for sale’ to foreign investors, especially from China and India. Some of these areas are in the Tamil North and East, whose rightful owners are in detention centres or are refugees, who are, as a consequence, unable to return home. Is this where Australia intends to send back Tamil asylum seekers?
Sri Lanka, in particular the Tamil North and East, is being divided up and sold
Unknown to many, there is a ‘fire-sale’ in Sri Lanka, particularly the Tamil lands in the North and East which international economists have stated, has the highest developmental potential. The buyers are China, India, and the Arab States, to name but a few. This is exactly what is happening in India which that outstanding Indian writer, Arundhati Roy, says in her outstanding book The Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire. Here she is:-
“The two arms of the Indian government have developed the perfect pincer action. While one arm is busy selling India off in chunks, the other, to divert attention, is orchestrating a howling, baying chorus of Hindu nationalism and religious fascism”.
So also in Sri Lanka. While one arm is selling off the country or borrowing heavily from international lenders i.e. the IMF and China, getting the country deeper and deeper into debt, the other is cheering the ‘victory’ over the Tamil militants and how the country has at last been freed from ‘terrorism’.
Arundhati Roy goes on :-
“The dismantling of democracy is proceeding with the sped and efficiency of a Structural Adjustment Program. While the project of corporate globalization rips through people’s lives in India, massive privatization and labour ‘reforms’ are pushing people off their land and out of their jobs. Hundreds of impoverished farmers are committing suicide by consuming pesticide. Reports of starvation deaths are coming in from all over the country.
While the elite journeys to their imaginary destination somewhere near the top of the world, the dispossessed are spiraling downwards into crime and chaos. This climate of frustration and national disillusionment is the perfect breeding ground, history tell us, for fascism”
That is precisely what is happening in Sri Lanka. Democracy is most certainly being dismantled at an alarming rate. (Tamil) people are being pushed off their lands into concentration camps or just into the jungle, and out of their jobs (fishing and agriculture). Hundreds (of Tamils) are committing suicide (I gather Sri Lanka has the 2nd highest suicide rate in the world). Starvation (of Tamils in the North, and now the Sinhalese poor in the South) is being increasingly reported.
The elite (in particular the Rajapaksa family) are journeying to the top of the world (it is not an imaginary destination), the rest are in grinding poverty with an inflation rate of nearly 30%, and fascism has already been established, proving that history repeats itself.
Tamils in the North and East
In the ‘concentration camps in the North, 90,000 Tamil civilians (men, women and children) are still being held without charge or trial behind razor-wire fenced ‘detention centres’ (which the Government of Sri Lanka calls “Welfare Villages”), but in reality are ‘concentration camps’. It is in violation of important International Conventions and UN Principles, signed and ratified by the GoSL. These are:
1. The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
2. The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (UNGPID)
3. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
4. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance
5. The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
6. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
It also violates Sri Lanka’s own Constitution and Laws. I will deal with this in a separate article since it is a very serious situation that the world seems to have forgotten about.
In March 2010, President Rajapaksa declared (gazetted) that the extensive network of army camps established during the war with the Tamil Tigers, will be made permanent. This indefinite military occupation of the northern and eastern provinces is aimed at the forcible suppression of the basic democratic rights of the Tamils.
The number of army camps in these two provinces, which have a population of about 3 million, has increased to 147, with two major Security Force headquarters in Kilinochchi and Mullaithivu, formerly held by the Tamil Tigers. Apart from the new military camps, at least a dozen new police stations will be established in this area.
Hundreds of Sri Lankan soldiers are engaged in constructing a big base in front of a major school[43] in Mallaavi with several layers of security precautions enclosing the streets in the area. The Army is also engaged in constructing similar bases in Poonakari and its surrounding areas. The permanent presence of the army in the Tamil North and East means not just military camps but roadblocks, checkpoints and patrols and the systematic surveillance, harassment and intimidation of the local Tamil population.
As well as acquiring land for the new army camps, the government is planning to establish large high security zones (HSZ) around important installations such as the new Army headquarters referred to earlier. Such areas are out of bounds to civilians and have previously resulted in the forced displacement of residents.
In the Eastern province, the army established a HSZ in the Trincomalee area and prevented thousands of people from returning to their homes, farms and businesses.
The government later declared a portion as a HSZ to be a Special Economic Zone, offering military protection to investors.
In the northern Jaffna Peninsula, 15 HSZs have been established since the 1990s, covering 160 sq km or 18 percent of the peninsula’s land mass. Around 130,000 people have been unable to return to their homes as a result.
“Disappearances”
Sri Lanka has the 2nd highest rate of ‘disappearances’ in the world, second only to Iraq. Most of them are Tamil men, in particular, youths. To return Tamil men to that country, as Australia is proposing to do, will simply increase this rate.
I draw attention to the Human Rights Watch Report: Sri Lanka: “Disappearances” by Security Forces. A Recurring nightmare: State Responsibility for “Disappearances” and Abductions, a 221 page detailed analysis published in March 2008. The situation has not changed.
Alleged Tamil Tiger (LTTE) ‘terrorists’ in a special camp
The government is currently detaining some 11,000 young Tamils, without trial as “LTTE[44] suspects” at unknown locations. Here are the observations of Human Rights Watch[45]:-
“The government detained more than 10,000 displaced persons at checkpoints and from the camps on suspicion of LTTE involvement, in many cases citing vague and overbroad emergency laws still in force after the end of the war. Many arrests were carried out in violation of domestic and international law. The authorities failed to inform families of their relatives’ fate and whereabouts”.
Some of them are as young as 8 years. When a visiting (Sinhalese) MP asked the army officer why someone as young as that should be in detention, he was told that those were his orders. Sri Lanka has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child!
Slave labour under the guise of “Rehabilitation”
The GoSL has now announced plans to use these detainees as a cheap labour force under a program initiated by the Justice Minister to “rehabilitate” alleged Tamil Tiger cadres. A government-sanctioned newspaper reported on March 13, 2010, that more than 10,000 LTTE suspects will be “settled” in various prison labour camps including in the districts of Trincomalee, Batticaloa and Jaffna. According to the Justice Ministry, the spouses and children of the cadres will be free to move in and out of the camps, but the detainees will be subject to strict security measures to ensure the “smooth functioning of the facilities.”
The government has already announced the establishment of a dairy farm at Suriyawewa near Trincomalee, involving about 500 former “LTTE cadres.” Ceylon Cold Stores, a large company manufacturing beverages and milk products, will invest in the project, but the army will be in charge.
The involvement of the army and air force in these projects points to the further militarisation of all aspects of life in Sri Lanka, including the economy. Far from there being any demobilisation, the country’s huge military - one of the largest per capita in the world - is being kept in place and entrenched as a permanent feature, particularly in the North and East.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s conclusions[46] on Afghanistan and Sri Lanka (and of his successor Prime Minister Julia Gillard) are wrong
Rudd and Gillard say that parts of Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are now more peaceful than they used to be and that would be taken into consideration when considering asylum applications. They say more and more applications were likely to be rejected as the security situation continued to improve.
Rudd said Australia was basing changing processing arrangements for asylum seekers claiming (falsely) that "Large parts of it are more secure. Some parts are not. Therefore, it depends where the people come from. The same with Afghanistan."
He said parts of Afghanistan were now more stable than before:- "Therefore, you have got to make a decision which fairly reflects where people come from, not just from the country but from the parts of the country."
Rudd said the government had suspended processing of asylum applications from people from Sri Lanka as the security situation unfolded:- "If it continues to improve, we will find more and more of those applications rejected and more sent back home."
As has been set out in detail above, what Prime Minister Rudd claims is at best, a misconception, at worst, a deliberate lie. In either case, it is irresponsible. The same holds for his successor, Julia Gillard. If they want to be the mouthpiece of President Mahinda Rajapaksa (as it appears to be), then the people of Australia and the rest of the world, must know this.
Australia’s misconception
As I have said, the Australian government refuses to accept that the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka is as bad as it was. There is overwhelming evidence from credible international human rights groups to confirm this. The Rajapaksa regime has penetrated the entire system of policing and has eroded the authority of the courts. ‘Legality’ is a farce in Sri Lanka.
It is also the result of a Constitution, enacted in 1977 by J.R.Jayawardene (from the other side of the political divide), that places the executive president over the parliament and judiciary. The incumbent, Mahinda Rajapaksa, told a public rally in March 2010, that constitutionally he is above the law. Contrary to the Australian government’s view that circumstances are ‘evolving’, Sri Lanka is a Presidential dictatorship, or worse – a Totalitarian State. The supposed “end of war” does not restore rule of law. The holding of elections does not signify respect for civil and political rights. Nothing justifies Australia suspending claims for asylum from those from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.
Nick Cheesman put this succinctly.[47]
“Under these conditions, the claims of Sri Lankan officials that their country is safe are absurd. Where can someone go to have a grievance heard? To whom can anyone turn for security? Without the rule of law, guarantees of safety are worthless.
If Australian policymakers really think that things are improving in Sri Lanka, then Australians need new policymakers. If Australian politicians think that acting tough on asylum seekers will win a few more votes, then they must count those votes against the lives of people whom they have endangered, people whom they have the legal and moral responsibility to protect”.
If the Australian government believes that circumstances in Sri Lanka are evolving, then it must explain why the opposition presidential candidate, former army commander Sarath Fonseka, has been kept in custody on a fabricated case since February 2010.
He is just one of thousands of people being held under arbitrary or tenuous charges, many of who are routinely tortured or threatened with torture.
The Australian government must explain how it reconciles this state of affairs with Australia’s duty under international law not to repatriate anyone to a place where he or she is at risk of torture. It must explain why attacks on journalists, lawyers, activists and other citizens that continue unabated in Sri Lanka have never been investigated, or the perpetrators brought to justice.
Normalcy
To claim that ‘normalcy’ has been established in Sri Lanka, and it is safe for Tamil refugees and asylum seekers to return to Sri Lanka, is arrant nonsense. This is the claim of the GoSL, desperate for foreign investment and tourists. The very fact that independent human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have been denied access to the North and East, and most certainly the ‘detention centres’, is clear evidence that there is something to hide. So also independent observers and the media, who either have no access, or very restricted access, to this entire area.
Action
The Australian people will have to be informed what their parliamentarians are doing, dragging the good name of Australia into the gutter of moral irresponsibility, to say nothing of the gross violation of the UN Refugee Convention signed by Australia.
Public protests are mandatory to salvage the name of Australia. Protests will have to be lodged with both leading political parties which have got Australia into this mess. This country can do better than sink to the level of Sri Lanka.
Christmas Island and the other (illegal) detention refugee centres (prisons), must be closed, and the recent outrageous decision to put on hold asylum seeker applications from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan must be withdrawn immediately.
If public protests fail, then Australian government will have to be forced to reverse the recent thoroughly irresponsible decision. If it does not do so, then legal action is the only answer. As I have said, there is provision in the UN Refugee Convention to take Australia to the International Court of Justice. Leading human rights lawyers such as Geoffrey Robertson QC, an Australian, now a British subject, and others in this country such as Julian Burnside QC, must be contacted about this.
If we do not act, we become part of the problem instead of the solution.
I am calling for an international protest.
1. Protest at the Australian Embassy in your country
2 Send a letter of protest to the Australian Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Australian Media.
Write, do not email
I urge you to write a letter, not take the easy option of sending an email. The latter can be wiped by a flick, leaving no trace. A letter has to be physically destroyed which creates more problems for the receiver. If it ends in a dustbin, let us fill the dustbins of those responsible.
That has been the strategy of AI all these 60 years – to write letters, to the most tyrannical regimes on earth. AI has persisted with this – because it works.
I urge you to lodge your protest with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbott, a letter of appreciation to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and to David Marr.
A copy to the media might well be crucial.
The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
(do NOT email her)
The Hon Tony Abbott MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
(do NOT email him)
The Hon Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
30 Pirie St, Adelaide SA 5000
Or Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
senator.hanson.young@aph.gov.au
Copies to the media are important.
The Australian
GPO Box 4245, Sydney, NSW, 2001, Australia.
letters@theaustralian.com.au
The Sydney Morning Herald (David Marr)
GPOBox 506
Sydney NSW 2001
newsdesk@smh.com.au
The Age
PO Box 257
Melbourne VIC 3001
newsdesk@theage.com.au
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation(ABC)
ABC Ultimo Centre
GPO Box 9994;
Sydney NSW 2001;
Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)
Locked Bag 028, Crows Nest NSW 1585
comments@sbs.com.au
I have drawn your attention to what is going on in Australia. It is now in your hands to decide whether or not to do something about.
Brian Senewiratne Brisbane, Australia 29 June 2010
[1] www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2010/fa-s100409.html
[2] Rudd was forced to step down in a virtual coup by his (Labor) party on 24 June 2010
[3] Gillard was also the Shadow Immigration Minister before Labor got into power in 2007
[4] UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
[5] Sinhalese 74%, Tamils 18,5%, Anti-Tamil discrimination in language, education, employment, job opportunities, and the violation of their human rights, has got Sinhalese parties into power.
[6] The evidence for this is presented later in this paper.
[7] http://www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml
[8] http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/advice/sri_lanka
[9] https://www.smarttraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Afghanistan
[10] http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,LKA,,4b9a09fc14,0.html
[11] Genocide is defined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as “an act committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part , a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.
[12]http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4bd1aa632.pdf
[13] http://www.erc.org.au/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=viewDocument&JAS_Document_id=260
[14] http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds240610.pdf - page 81
[15] Since 11 October 2009.
[16] http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4bd1aa632.pdf
[17] www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml
[18] Special Broadcasting Corporation – one of Australia’s quality broadcasters.
[19] The End of America Chapter 10
[20] BBC, Sri Lanka ruling party wins majority in parliament, 9 April 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8610705.stm
[21] http://www.nowpublic.com/world/gordon-weiss-abc-news-sri-lanka-slaughtered-40000-tamils
[22] http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2811292.htm
[23] UNHCR Global Appeal 2010-11, p. 40, http://www.unhcr.org/4b0426839.pdf
[24] UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report on Human Rights 2009, March 2010, p. 149, http://centralcontent.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/human-rights-reports/human-rights-report-2009,
[25] International Crisis Group, Update Briefing: Sri Lanka: A Bitter Peace, 11 January 2010, p. 1, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south_asia/sri_lanka/b99_sri_lanka___a_bitter_peace.pdf
[26] US Department of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka, 11 March 2010, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136093.htm
[27] High Security Zones (so-called)
[28] US Department of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka, 11 March 2010, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136093.htm US Department of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka, 11 March 2010, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136093.htm
[29] Unfortunately, he has just quit politics. It is a huge loss. His valedictory speech was on asylum seekers.
[30] David Marr & Marian Wilkinson (2005). Dark Victory, ISBN 1-74114-447-7
[31] http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/sril-j02.shtml
[32] The claim by the GoSL that it is providing food, is a diabolical lie.
[33] International Crisis Group, Update Briefing: Sri Lanka: A Bitter Peace, 11 January 2010, p. 16, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/south_asia/sri_lanka/b99_sri_lanka___a_bitter_peace.pdf,
[34] CNN, Sri Lankan candidate alleges intimidation, 27 January 2010, http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/srilanka.election/index.html
[35] Polgreen, Lydia, President of Sri Lanka Is Re-elected by Wide Edge, New York Times, 20 January 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28lanka.html
[36] Al Jazeera, Sri Lanka arrests General Fonseka, 9 February 2010, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/02/20102816287441879.html
[37] Haviland, Charles, Leaderless Sri Lankan opposition faces uphill task, BBC, 9 February 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8506912.stm
[38] BBC, Sri Lanka army officers remanded over ‘coup plot,’ 26 February 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8539785.stm
[39] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8725899.stm
[40] Burke, Jason, Sri Lanka votes in elections set to tighten president’s grip on power, 8 April 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/08/sri-lanka-election
[41] President Rajapaksa’s United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA)
[42] The highest being Maldives
[43] Paali Nakar Maththiya Viththiyaalayam
[44] Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – Tamil Tigers.
[45] Human Rights Watch, World Report 2010, p. 350, http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2010,
[46] http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/7069023/parts-of-sri-lanka-afghanistan-ok-pm/
Video http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/7069023/parts-of-sri-lanka-afghanistan-ok-pm/
[47] Canberra Times April 13, 2010