This week’s revelation that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Julie Bishop has raised for discussion the subject of Cambodia accommodating refugees is beyond comprehension when it is widely known that a regional solution that opens a safe pathway process to Australia is the answer to the current asylum seeking irregular maritime arrivals dilemma.
Also this week former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser reminded the Government that there is currently no regional process and that a regional process is the only solution to enable safe passage for asylum seekers to Australia in conjunction with an increase to 27,000 within five years, as recommended by the Houston Committee.
In the manuscript Destination Detention I argue that the answer to the question, how do we mitigate the risk of asylum seekers drowning on a sea voyage to Australia, or much worse in an onshore or offshore detention centre, is in the South Asia Solution and more specifically in India.
The South Asia Solution will eliminate the need for asylum seekers from this same region to be trafficked to Malaysia and Indonesia and then sent on to Australia in boats.
The current situation calls for innovative if not radical thinking from the Government to manage Australia’s intake of refugee and asylum seekers in the mid to long term.
In consultation with member countries of the Bali Process Ad Hoc Group, the United Nations High Commissions for Refugees [UNHCR] and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation [SAARC] countries, in particular India, Australia must show initiative and leadership within the region and consider the development of a diplomatically negotiated, bilateral and multilateral agreement whereby a regional temporary safe haven facility is established in India with management cooperation between India and Australia and an integrated South Asian and Australian citizenship staff.
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are member nations of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation or SAARC. Iran, a neighbour to the west of Pakistan and Afghanistan is not a member but is a close neighbour to South Asia. Australia is listed as an observer.
Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are presently the main origin countries in the South Asia region from where the greater number of men, women and children are arriving in Australian waters as Irregular Maritime Arrivals or boat people.
Member countries of the Bali Process Ad Hoc Group include Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, New Zealand, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United States of America and Vietnam.
A significant investment from Australia to plan, construct and operate the regional safe haven transit facility would clearly be necessary, however, a saving of almost $10 billion dollars would be realized by closing the Manus and Nauru offshore detention centres.
The focus of the solution should be on mandatory regional processing and not mandatory detention.
Regional processing will in time remove the need to repel Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels [SIEVs] from Australian waters in Operation Sovereign Borders because they will cease to exist.
The focus of the solution should be on mandatory regional processing and not mandatory detention.
India is not a full signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1976 Protocol, however, it continues to grant asylum and provide direct assistance to some 200,000 refugees from neighbouring states and it is a member of the Bali Process Ad Hoc Group.
Currently the Ad Hoc Group’s Terms of Reference include;
1. The development of practical outcomes at the operational level to assist countries to mitigate increased irregular population movements;
2. The enhancement of information sharing arrangements between most-affected countries; and
3. The reporting to Co-Chairs through the Steering Group with concrete recommendations to inform future regional cooperation on people smuggling and trafficking in persons.
The UNHCR works with host governments, UN Country Teams, civil society and other partners in South Asia to find comprehensive solutions for refugees and internationally displaced persons many of who are in states of protracted displacement.
India is in close proximity to Iran and Afghanistan, is a neighbouring country to Pakistan and Sri Lanka and presents as a logical regional location for a temporary safe haven.
Should a vessel arrive in Australian waters with asylum seeker passengers, they would immediately be subject to “regional repatriation” and be returned by air to the dedicated and managed ‘safe haven waiting room’ in South Asia – in this case India – established specifically for asylum seekers intending to travel to or arriving irregularly in Australia by sea from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. This could be extended to include Iraqis and Syrians.
This action alone will immediately deter arrivals by boat to Australia when it is understood that regional repatriation is the standard procedure and that processing of claims will take place in India.
Australians have asked why Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka don’t just go to the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, home to 60 million Tamil speakers. The answer is that more than 100,000 have done just that. Over 80,000 of them live in special refugee camps funded and run by the Indian Government.
Another 31,000 live in the community, mostly in cities such as Chennai.
In neighbouring Pakistan, the numbers are even more confronting. Despite battling insurgency and economic collapse, Pakistan hosts nearly 2 million Afghan refugees. Tens of thousands of them have been allowed to set up businesses and make their home in Pakistan’s cities and towns while they wait for the United Nations to find them a new home. Asylum seekers are determined, desperate and resilient. They are driven by the need to flee from persecution and circumstances where their life and the lives of their families are threatened. There is clear evidence that they will have no hesitation to self-harm if there is any indication that Australian authorities are considering their return to Indonesia or their home country.
An enduring and sustainable solution does not lie in “turning back the boats” when the journey being taken is the last leg to their intended destination. The solution lies in managing the movement of asylum seekers closer to their point of origin and providing a safe pathway for them to reach a destination where they can apply for protection.
The proposed solution requires the creation of factors that will influence the movement of asylum seekers to this regional transit safe haven not far from their original environment but far enough for them to be safe from homeland persecution and exposure to life threatening circumstances.
Asylum seeker intentions to travel by sea to Australia will be eliminated when it is known that they will be subject to “temporary regional repatriation” and placed in a South Asian safe haven location for a short to medium time frame where there is mandatory processing and not mandatory detention.
It will remove the need for asylum seekers to engage with people traffickers, or smugglers, to facilitate their travel from Karachi, Lahore or Dubai to Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur and then onto Jakarta prior to their departure to Australia by sea and it will disconnect the chain of civil service corruption that produces fraudulently obtained passports, visas and travel documents to the people trafficking industry.
The average amount that an asylum seeker pays to a people trafficker is generally between US$8,000 and US$12,000. For this a person fleeing persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran may receive a Passport, travel documents and visas to enable the asylum seeker to enter transit countries, airfares – always with Thai Airways, Malaysia Airlines, Sri Lanka Airlines and sometimes Pakistan International Airlines – land transfers in local taxis and small people mover buses and accommodation in basic hotels and apartments.
The fee also includes the costs for guaranteed use of a boat, often an old fishing vessel not suitable for the open sea, its fuel and crew and food which are usually very basic items such as vegetables, rice and water while travelling by sea.
Money paid for the boat is always considered as a replacement cost to the owner of the vessel as it will certainly be destroyed following arrival in Australia.
It is generally understood that some Tamils travelling from Sri Lanka often travel by sea directly from Sri Lanka to Australia and have not always used Indonesia or Malaysia as a transit country.
From the total amount paid to a people trafficking travel agent, fees to immigration officials and in many cases police are paid to facilitate an uninterrupted transit between countries of South East Asia.
The purpose of the South Asia Solution is not to transfer the problem from the northwestern coastal waters of Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia to India.
The objective is to establish a safe haven facility in South Asia that processes claims for protection for those who are specifically seeking asylum in Australia and are able to engage with Australia’s protection claims.
The South Asia Solution will reduce the requirement for those seeking protection to sell property and take out excessive loans to pay for their movement from South Asia to Australia. It will immediately eliminate the capacity for loss of life at sea in the Indian Ocean between South East Asia and Australia.
It will create a positive economic impact for India and provide employment opportunities for citizens of South Asia and Australia, limit the impulsive decision of asylum seekers to travel to Australia and reset their compass towards India from where Australia is able to manage its intake and arrival of asylum seekers with legitimate claims for protection.
There will also be time for asylum seekers to reconsider their situation and decide on voluntary return to their home country if circumstances become favourable.
The location of a South Asia regional safe haven facility ensures that the customs and traditions of South Asia continue in a similar cultural, religious and linguistic environment to the asylum seekers homeland while accommodated at the transitional detention city.
With the exception of interpreters and some immigration officers with traditional backgrounds or previous nationalities from refugee countries, asylum seekers often arrive in Australia in a traumatised condition and are then intimidated by the confrontational manner in speech and body language of Australian Customs, Border Protection and Immigration Officers all of who have the capacity to contribute to the development of mental health vulnerabilities.
The establishment of a regional transit detention city in India is not intended to be a duplication of a UNHCR Refugee Camp.
The objective is to establish of a new and some may well consider to be a radical management solution to a contemporary immigration dilemma that will continue to have South Asia, South East Asia and Australasian regional and implications for many years to come.
A South Asia temporary safe haven facility in India would offer the services found in refugee camps currently operated by the UNHCR and which include the development of new livelihood strategies to help refugees to become self reliant through training, employment and entrepreneurship opportunities in cooperation with local government authorities and civil societies.
English language classes and orientation to Australian culture, optional but highly recommended services already provided at onshore Immigration Detention Centres in Australia, would be offered in a safe haven facility.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection currently incurs very significant costs for the use of commercial air transport from Skywest Airlines and Sky Traders chartered services to name two, particularly in Western Australia when transferring clients from Christmas Island to onshore detention centres and then to Manus or Nauru.
These costs will be significantly reduced when the flow of inbound irregular maritime arrivals to Australia decreases or ceases.
In time, the costs of temporary regional repatriation will be reduced when it becomes known that arriving in Australia “unlawfully”, using maritime travel means will result in return to the South Asia region for mandatory processing.
Nationwide community action rallies and vigils that have taken place over the past week supporting asylum seekers and the closing of detention centres demands some creative thinking by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Julie Bishop, the Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison and the Prime Minister.
The question needs to be asked. Has there been any exploration of the safe pathways that exist for asylum seekers with the Ad Hoc member countries of the Bali Process in South Asia and more specifically India so far?
Australia and India share a bilateral relationship with a particular focus on security and strategic issues.
The two countries cooperate in science, technology, international education and research across India and the South Asia region, which includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. There has been significant growth in the trade relationship between Australia and India. The value of two-way trade has grown from $3.3 billion in 2000 to over $17.4 billion in 2012 according to information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Negotiations between the two countries have commenced to agree the terms upon which Australia will sell uranium to India.
The Incredible India tourism campaign brings billions of Indian Rupees to India as Australia’s love affair with India flourishes.
Australia and India participate in the Commonwealth Games and share in many legacies from Great Britain.
The idea of a safe haven transit facility might be new to Australia and the region but it is not new to Europe.
In 2003, about 50 kilometres from Zagreb in Croatia, a village was being constructed to hold approximately 800 people. These people were asylum seekers from the Balkans and Eastern Europe bound for Great Britain.
The village was to be funded by the European Commission for Great Britain and the intention was that Britain would use the village to hold asylum seekers from the Balkans and Eastern Europe who arrived or were bound for British ports and airports.
Instead of having their applications for refugee status assessed in Britain, first arriving asylum seekers would be relocated to this new transit processing centre in Croatia.
Peter Mares, author of the book Borderline Australia’s treatment of refugees an asylum seekers, published in 2001, explains that Britain wanted the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to manage the centres and it wanted the UNHCR to process the refugee applications.
Today these centres may have been called The Balkan Solution.
Britain intended the Croation facility to be the first of a network of transit processing centres set up in countries outside the European Union’s borders, creating a buffer zone where asylum seekers could transit safely and be processed.
Australia must develop an immigration policy for asylum seekers that regulates, manages and demonstrates an understanding of the movement of displaced people in our regional neighbourhood.
It should be a reflection of a nation that fully recognizes the cultural contribution and positive economic impact that asylum seekers can make to Australia.
Above all it must be humane, compassionate and welcoming and be completely pro active in its approach to creating a fresh and dynamic solution to the asylum seeker issue.
Reviving the old Pacific Solution suggests that the Government lacks the courage and the ingenuity to design a new policy that provides a safe way – rather than no way – for asylum seekers to enter Australia lawfully.
There is an urgent need to educate the Australian community on the asylum seeker subject. It should be a concern that the majority of the Australian electorate does not question the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration.
Neither are there many challenges to the main stream print and electronic media.
The electorate remains ignorant of the core issues of the asylum seeker debate.
The Australian Government’s preoccupation with stopping boats is short sighted. Boats and their human cargo will continue for as long as there are people in transit in Indonesia seeking asylum in Australia.
When coastal conditions in Indonesia return to calm and the monsoon has moved on in the coming weeks, boat departures bound for Australia will again run the gauntlet with the Australian Navy.
Australia must think beyond the boats for a sustainable solution.