View previous stories
	Proposed new Australian border control measures raise serious concerns by UN News / AAP / Radio New Zealand Australia   Update: June 15, 2006   New immigration laws mean Children will be detained, genuine refugees denied protection (The Age - Editorial)   Australia is a signatory to international human rights agreements; it long ago overturned the infamous White Australia Policy and, in the 1970s, led the world in welcoming Vietnamese "boat people", the first major influx of refugees to reach our shores.   The new law is an abomination of this tradition. It will force future asylum seekers arriving by boat to be processed offshore in places such as Nauru, in effect excising the entire Australian coastline from our migration zone. Children will once again be detained, genuine refugees (and most who have reached our shores have been found to be genuine) will be denied the protection of the Australian legal system and successful applicants may be detained indefinitely until they are accepted by a third country.   The changes are an indication that much- vaunted moves to improve immigration practices, notably the decision last year to revoke the mandatory detention of children and to allow the release of long-term detainees into the community, were an aberration.   The criticism has been loud and clear. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley called the move to offshore processing unnecessary appeasement to Indonesia; Liberal senator Judith Troeth said the bill appeared to be intended to stop even genuine asylum seekers coming to Australia; and Queensland Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce said decisions about asylum should not be based on political expediency.   Despite the internal rumblings, the Prime Minister is confident the legislation will pass. John Howard seems to have paid greater attention to the Indonesian Government than to Australia"s human rights obligations or the views of his own backbench. But he should not be too complacent. Coalition politicians have previously shown an admirable commitment to human rights. They are well aware that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accords people the right "to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" and does not make exceptions for political pragmatism.   As The Age has previously acknowledged, this is a sensitive issue with no easy answers. But if Australia"s relationship with Indonesia has indeed matured, our northern neighbour should be able to accept this country"s honouring of its international obligations on human rights.   18 April 2006   Proposed new Australian border control measures raise serious concerns. (UN News)   The United Nations refugee agency today voiced serious concern over proposed new border control measures by Australia to deal with asylum seekers arriving by boat, including their transferral offshore, even if they have reached the mainland, to have their claims processed.   “If this were to happen, it would be an unfortunate precedent, being for the first time, to our knowledge, that a country with a fully functioning and credible asylum system, in the absence of anything approximating a mass influx, decides to transfer elsewhere the responsibility to handle claims made actually on the territory of the state,” the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said.   “This is even more worrying in the absence of any clear indications as to what might be the nature of the envisaged offshore processing arrangement,” spokesperson Jennifer Pagonis told a news briefing in Geneva. “If it is not one that meets the same high standards Australia sets for its own processes, this could be tantamount to penalizing for illegal entry.”   She stressed that the widely adhered-to practice is for signatory states to the 1951 Refugee Convention, like Australia, to grant asylum seekers access to a full and fair refugee status determination process to determine their protection needs, implemented by the state authority, with the real possibility of timely and appropriate solutions.   This excludes any possibility of refoulement (forcible return) and allows for asylum seekers to be able to live in humane, decent conditions which respect family unity while waiting for their claims to be processed and a solution found.   Many refugees have arrived in Australia by boat in recent years, originating from such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Bangladesh. Overwhelmed by the upsurge, the Government has intercepted some of them at sea or on offshore islands and sent them to Nauru or Papua New Guinea"s Manus Island.   Ms. Pagonis said the agency was aware of the difficulties and shares the concerns governments face in dealing with people smuggling and managing irregular arrivals in their territories, including unauthorized boat arrivals.   “However, these proposed new measures raise some serious concerns,” she added. “In particular the stated intention that persons who land on the Australian mainland - who should normally fall under the migration act and have their claims processed in Australia - will be taken offshore for assessment of their claim, with Australia"s responsibilities to bona fide refugees deflected elsewhere.”   April 14, 2006   Australia"s Hardline asylum stand under fire. (AAP / Sydney Morning Herald).   The Australian government"s tough new asylum-seeker regime has been condemned as an act of moral abandonment .   The government has announced it is extending its 2001 Pacific Solution following a rift with Indonesia over the decision to grant temporary protection visas to 42 Papuans last month.   Under the changes, anyone entering Australia illegally by boat - whether they made it to the mainland or not - would be sent to one of three offshore immigration detention centres for processing. The government hopes to send even those found to be genuine refugees to a "third country".   As Australians begin the Easter long weekend, church groups have denounced the new hardline policy. The Uniting Church today described it as an act of moral abandonment. "It is a sad day for Australia when its government shelves our commitment to uphold the basic human rights of all people," Uniting Church president Reverend Dr Dean Drayton said.   Meanwhile, Amnesty International said Australia could be in breach of its international obligations if it had one policy for asylum seekers arriving by boat, and another for those who arrived by plane.   "All asylum seekers must be treated equally," the human rights group said. "Australia"s commitment under the international refugee convention ... is that it will not penalise refugees based on their method of arrival."   Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said, "Yesterday, we had one of the most radical changes imaginable to our immigration policy where the government seriously proposed effectively excising, not one more island, but the entirety of Australia from the immigration zone".   14 Apr 2006   Church, Amnesty condemn Australian moves on asylum seekers. (Radio New Zealand)   Churches and Amnesty International are united in their condemnation of the Australian government"s proposed changes to the way asylum seekers are treated.   Under a new hardline proposal, the government wants to send all asylum seekers who reach the Australian mainland by boat offshore for processing.   The changes are part of a review conducted after the granting of visas to 42 Papuans sparked diplomatic tensions between Australia and Indonesia.   Amnesty"s Dr Graeme Tom says the Australian government is breaching international human rights law with its new legislation.   Reverend Drayton told ABC radio the changes lack "moral courage from our perspective of whether human rights have been honoured or not" and will put people in limbo. "I"m appalled by it - the commitment to human rights by our Government has been demonstrated to run at best a poor second to foreign policy considerations and in doing so we"re denying our international responsibilities," he says.   "They"re sent off to another nation in the Pacific with this so-called Pacific Solution, even if a determination is made that they can come to Australia, they still have to wait in the queue, so it"s like putting people into limbo."   April 7, 2006   Leave politics out of Papuan debate: refugee advocate. (ABC News Online)   The Australian Government has been urged to leave politics out of the debate about Papuan refugees.   Tensions have grown between Australia and Indonesia over the granting of temporary asylum for 42 Papuans.   The Coordinator of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, David Manne, says it is disappointing politics have been dragged into the debate. "It"s not a political decision it ought not be interfered with on a political basis," he said. "It"s a decision based on the fundamental human rights of a person who faces a real prospect of being persecuted.   "Its very disappointing that some Indonesian officials seem to have interpreted the decision on the 43 Papuans as a political one, instead of something that simply applies international and Australian law to this group of applicants judged on the individual merits of their claims - as is the case with applicants from other countries when they seek asylum. "The very same approach ought to be applied to anyone else who comes."
	Last chance to try the Khmer Rouge by Floyd Abrams & Diane Orentlicher International Herald Tribune / Reuters Cambodia   April 13, 2006   Cambodia"s killing fields. (IHT)   Thirty-one years ago next week, a peasant army clad in the black of the Khmer Rouge marched into Phnom Penh and quickly emptied Cambodia"s capital of human life. "This is Year Zero," Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot declared as Cambodia began one of the darkest chapters in world history.   For most Cambodians, time did not so much begin as end in April 1975. Over the next three and a half years, as many as two million people - nearly a third of Cambodia"s population - were either executed or died from starvation or disease resulting from Khmer Rouge policies.   More than three decades after the fall of Phnom Penh, Cambodians are still waiting for justice.   Pol Pot"s death in April 1998 forever deprived Cambodians of the justice of seeing him tried, but it created new impetus to seek some measure of accountability for surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge.   Negotiations between the Cambodian government and the United Nations to establish a special tribunal to prosecute Khmer Rouge atrocities, triggered by a Cambodian request in 1997, have been agonizingly slow. At last, however, the court is becoming a reality.   In February, the deputy director of the court"s administrative office, a UN appointee, arrived in Phnom Penh. Later that month, hundreds of Cambodian witnesses visited the courtroom in which surviving leaders of Khmer Rouge atrocities will be tried. Confronted with the material reality of the Khmer Rouge tribunal, many visitors wept.   Last month, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan submitted a list of international judges to serve on the court - formally the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea.   Every Nuremberg-type tribunal is fraught with challenges and risks, and significant perils are woven into the very fabric of this one. Unlike international courts operating in The Hague, Arusha and Freetown, local judges will constitute a majority in the Cambodian court, which is established within Cambodia"s national court system.   Given well-founded concerns about the susceptibility of Cambodian judges to political interference by Cambodia"s longtime leader, Prime Minister Hun Sen, this has led some international organizations to condemn the Extraordinary Chambers before its work has begun.   While aware of the perils, supporters of the process, including the United Nations, argue that it is the last chance to deliver some measure of justice to survivors of Cambodia"s killing fields. They say safeguards against abuse have been built into the tribunal"s structure. For example, at least one foreign judge must agree with the Cambodian judges to reach a verdict.   The fact is that Khmer Rouge leaders are aging and dying. Pol Pot and another prime suspect, Kae Pok, are dead, while our dinner host, Ieng Sary, is said to suffer from a serious heart condition. For Cambodian victims, the principal lesson of the protracted trial of Slobodan Milosevic, which was terminated last month by his death, is clear: Justice further delayed may be justice forever denied.   The experiences of other recent war crimes courts offer other lessons as well.   They have shown that the way survivors perceive the proceedings is powerfully affected by their treatment as witnesses. Donors should ensure that adequate funds are devoted to supporting and protecting witnesses.   The judges, prosecutors and defense counsel should receive intensive training in both international and Cambodian law and procedure to ensure effective trial proceedings.   The Extraordinary Chambers should also ensure that the public is informed about their work, and should be aware of how Cambodians perceive the tribunal.   A significant failure of the Yugoslavia tribunal was its belated engagement with citizens in the Balkans. The void was readily filled by hostile nationalist propaganda.   While these concerns are common to all such tribunals, the Cambodia court presents especial risks of political interference. Hun Sen has repeatedly delayed the creation of the tribunal and tightly controls all political life in the country.   Foreign donors who support the tribunal must carefully monitor the proceedings and should establish an institutionalized process for doing so.   The donors should also provide significant support for empowering Cambodian civic organizations to monitor and engage with the Extraordinary Chambers.   Even if the process is flawed - unfortunately a virtual certainty - it can serve as a vehicle for further enhancing the skills and influence of Cambodia"s vibrant and sophisticated civil society, which has faced particularly severe repression this past year.   This itself would be an invaluable legacy of trials that are long past due the aging survivors of Cambodia"s killing fields.   (Floyd Abrams, author of "Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment," and Diane Orentlicher, a director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, first visited Cambodia on behalf of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, now Human Rights First in 1984.)   March 15, 2006   UN says Khmer Rouge Trials must Start. (Reuters)   The death of Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic during his trial has heightened the need to start the long-delayed trials of ageing Khmer Rouge leaders on charges of genocide, an Australian United Nations official says.   No date has been set for the trials of the surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge under whose rule an estimated 1.7 million people were killed or died of forced labour, starvation or disease between 1975 and the end of 1978.   But Helen Jarvis, the UN Khmer task force"s Australian spokeswoman, said at a ceremony for the signing of an agreement on the logistics of the trials that everyone involved wanted them to start soon. "Not only for the possible accused, but also the victims and Cambodians who are waiting for justice, everybody needs to move forward quickly," Jarvis said. "And of course this concern is heightened by the death of Slobodan Milosevic over the weekend," she said.   "We all know that the possible accused all are aging, so we really have to start the process as soon as we can," said Michelle Lee, the UN"s deputy director of the court administration preparing the trials.   Two Khmer Rouge leaders have been detained - Ta Mok, the one-legged Khmer Rouge military chief who is now 78, and Duch, 59, head of the Tuol Sleng interrogation centre from which fewprisoners emerged alive. Duch"s real name is Kang Kek Ieu.   The regime"s leader, "Brother Number One" Pol Pot, died in 1998, but others such as "Brother Number Two" Nuon Chea, former head of state Khieu Samphan and former Foreign Minister Ieng Sary are living as free men. All are in their 70s.   On Thursday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan sent Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen a list of 12 possibles for the international staff on the landmark joint tribunal, which has a three-year budget of $US56.3 million.   Phnom Penh had also submitted its candidates for the court, which will be presided over by three Cambodian and two international judges sitting jointly.   Almost every single Cambodian family lost relatives under the rule of the back to the land Khmer Rouge, who emptied the cities and isolated the country.   None of their leaders has faced justice and critics fear many of them will die before the legal process ends.
	View more stories