08/18/2006
print
send
printsend
Prime Minister Howard withdraws legislation that would have sent asylum-seekers to Nauru
Although known for extremely rigid immigration policies, Australia has refused
what critics have called, “a permanent Guantanamo for refugees.” On Monday August
14, John Howard’s conservative government dropped a proposed law that would have
automatically sent to the island of Nauru all asylum-seekers who arrived in Australia
by sea. The plan called for the refugees to remain on the island while their case
was reviewed; a process that can take years. The Prime Minister withdrew the proposed
legislation after three congressmen of his own party voted against it in the lower
House, a signal that the government – with a bare one-seat majority in the Senate
– could not ignore. The law’s failure constitutes the greatest defeat in John
Howard’s ten-year reign as Prime Minister.
Rupture with Indonesia. The planned law was widely considered an effort to shore up relations with Indonesia,
angry that Australian authorities granted political asylum to 42 immigrants from
Papua who escaped by sea from Indonesia to Australia. A former Dutch colony annexed
by referendum to Jakarta in 1969, Papua has been the scene for decades of a low-level
separatist movement. Papuan activists denounce Indonesia human rights abuses,
which Indonesia denies while cracking down on the activists. Last year, two supporters
of independence were sentenced to 10 and 15 years in prison for having waved the
Papuan flag during a demonstration. Indonesia temporarily withdrew their ambassador
from Canberra to protest Australia’s offer of asylum to the Papuans, charging
that Australia was in effect recognizing Papuan secessionist claims. But the two
countries must of necessity cooperate on immigration issues: Australia needs Indonesia’s
help to limit the boat people who arrive on its shores from the archipelago.
The Failed Plan. Australian analysts say that Howard wanted to make a gesture of strength to
pacify his Indonesian allies. The current laws, however, are hardly lax: all immigrants
intercepted by sea or on islands off the coast are already sent to Nauru, and
those who make it to the mainland fare little better. The notorious refugee centers,
such as the one in Baxter, are planted in the middle of the desert, and Howard
stopped sending children there only after concerted protests by a range of organizations.
The proposed law would have sent all asylum-seekers, including women and children,
for an indefinite period to Nauru, a tiny island state of 13,000 inhabitants cramped
into 21 square kilometers northeast of Indonesia. In exchange for accepting its
refugees, Nauru has been receiving payments in the form of aid from Australia
since 2001. An editorial in the Australian daily The Age argued, “It would have been like building a defensive net around the entire
continent, and would have violated Australia’s obligations toward refugees.”
Reactions. Dissent from the opposition was inevitable, but the plan provoked grumbling
even within Howard’s governing Liberal Party. The Prime Minister took the blow
in stride, stating that he was “proud” of the diversity of opinion within his
own party, but he continued to argue his case, saying, “I still believe in this
law, but I accept that we don’t have the votes in the Senate.” Indonesian authorities,
however, have not concealed their disappointment. A government spokesman said,
“Australia has opened the door to asylum seekers.” For Howard, who built his reputation
on firmness on immigration issues, it’s the first time he’s heard such a charge.
Rupture with Indonesia. The planned law was widely considered an effort to shore up relations with Indonesia,
angry that Australian authorities granted political asylum to 42 immigrants from
Papua who escaped by sea from Indonesia to Australia. A former Dutch colony annexed
by referendum to Jakarta in 1969, Papua has been the scene for decades of a low-level
separatist movement. Papuan activists denounce Indonesia human rights abuses,
which Indonesia denies while cracking down on the activists. Last year, two supporters
of independence were sentenced to 10 and 15 years in prison for having waved the
Papuan flag during a demonstration. Indonesia temporarily withdrew their ambassador
from Canberra to protest Australia’s offer of asylum to the Papuans, charging
that Australia was in effect recognizing Papuan secessionist claims. But the two
countries must of necessity cooperate on immigration issues: Australia needs Indonesia’s
help to limit the boat people who arrive on its shores from the archipelago.The Failed Plan. Australian analysts say that Howard wanted to make a gesture of strength to
pacify his Indonesian allies. The current laws, however, are hardly lax: all immigrants
intercepted by sea or on islands off the coast are already sent to Nauru, and
those who make it to the mainland fare little better. The notorious refugee centers,
such as the one in Baxter, are planted in the middle of the desert, and Howard
stopped sending children there only after concerted protests by a range of organizations.
The proposed law would have sent all asylum-seekers, including women and children,
for an indefinite period to Nauru, a tiny island state of 13,000 inhabitants cramped
into 21 square kilometers northeast of Indonesia. In exchange for accepting its
refugees, Nauru has been receiving payments in the form of aid from Australia
since 2001. An editorial in the Australian daily The Age argued, “It would have been like building a defensive net around the entire
continent, and would have violated Australia’s obligations toward refugees.”Reactions. Dissent from the opposition was inevitable, but the plan provoked grumbling
even within Howard’s governing Liberal Party. The Prime Minister took the blow
in stride, stating that he was “proud” of the diversity of opinion within his
own party, but he continued to argue his case, saying, “I still believe in this
law, but I accept that we don’t have the votes in the Senate.” Indonesian authorities,
however, have not concealed their disappointment. A government spokesman said,
“Australia has opened the door to asylum seekers.” For Howard, who built his reputation
on firmness on immigration issues, it’s the first time he’s heard such a charge.Alessandro Ursic
Topic:
Related articles:
Most discussed topics:
Most frequently used keywords:
