AUSTRALIA'S GUANTANAMO PROBLEM
by
Ben Saul
Courtesy of The New York Times
G'day folks,
As you know, I'm involved in Human Rights issues. Have been for many years. Having said that, I guess most of you who do not live in this country, probably think that Australia would be a great observer of Human Rights. Mm ... read on. This article was written by Ben Saul, Professor of International Law at
the University of Sydney, and published in the New York Times yesterday, 25th of March.
On a
remote, sunny island, some 52 people have been detained for up to nearly five
years without trial on secret evidence, with no prospect of release. A series
of suicide attempts since 2012 speaks to their profound suffering. One man
attempted to hang himself with a bed sheet. Another tried to electrocute
himself. Another drank bleach. Another cut himself and used his blood to leave
a message on a wall. All remain in detention; the government dismisses them as
attention-seekers.
The
island is not Cuba, where the United States holds inmates at its prison at
Guantánamo Bay, but Australia. Over a decade after 9/11, the long shadow on
human rights cast by America’s “war on terror” has extended to one of the
world’s most peaceful corners.
The
majority of these detainees, most of whom I represent, are deemed security
risks by the Australian government and housed in facilities in Villawood, a
Sydney suburb, and Maribyrnong, near Melbourne. An estimated 46 are ethnic-Tamil
Sri Lankans, most of whom fled to Australia to escape Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil
war between Tamil separatists and Sinhalese-dominated government forces. Three
are Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, where recent clashes between Muslims and
Buddhists have caused hundreds of deaths and displaced hundreds of thousands of
people. One is a Kuwaiti Bedouin; another is an Afghan of Hazari origin, an
ethnic group long victimized by the Taliban.
Last
August, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that the detainees were
being illegally held, without proof or judicial protection, in cruel, inhuman
or degrading circumstances.
A committee report identified some 150 violations
of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
Australia accepted in 1980. It set a Feb 18 deadline for the detainees’ release
into Australia, on security conditions as appropriate, which Australia
summarily ignored. This flouting of United Nations recommendations is
unacceptable: Australia should immediately release the detainees and guarantee
them due process under national law.
The
United Nations report also criticized Australia’s practice of detaining
children, including infants. In 2009, three children under the age of eight
were held with their parents at the Villawood facility. The report found that
detention had severely impaired the children’s psychological development. The
family was finally released last year, after the Australian Security
Intelligence Organization revised its assessment.
In making
a case for detention, Australia’s immigration department relies on a security
assessment of each prisoner, covering everything from espionage to terrorism
and people-smuggling. The burden of proof is not high; detention can be upheld
even if the A.S.I.O. deems it relatively unlikely that the person under
assessment may commit harm. As the organization is not legally required to
disclose evidence, little is known about why specific risk designations are
upheld. Many detainees do not know the grounds on which they are being held.
Because no court or tribunal can independently test the organization’s claims,
it is impossible to know whether the detainees are truly dangerous.
The
security organization asserts that the Villawood and Maribyrnong prisoners
might commit politically motivated acts of violence. In the case of the Tamil
detainees, it alleges prior relationships with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam, the rebel group that carried out attacks and suicide bombings during the
Sri Lankan civil war. But few of the detainees fought in that war, and none is
alleged to have harmed civilians or committed terrorist acts. Many were
nominally associated with the Tigers because they lived in parts of Sri Lanka
that fell under Tamil control. One was a civilian lawyer for the Tamils;
another dug ditches to shelter civilians. Australia’s immigration department in
2010 and 2011 extraordinarily granted refugee status to all of the detainees; a
designation explicitly denied anyone who has committed past acts of terrorism,
or who is believed to pose a serious future risk.
Few
Australians, it would seem, are troubled by the plight of the detainees.
Certainly no sizeable political constituency has expressed concern, perhaps
because “boat people” are generally unpopular. But perhaps the larger problem
is that, since reporting inside detention centers is restricted, the refugees
have largely remained invisible.
Sustained
international pressure is therefore essential. Australia cares greatly about
its reputation, particularly with democratic peers like Britain, the European
Union, Canada, Japan and Indonesia. Even China, Australia’s largest economic
partner — and a country whose own human rights record is hardly unblemished —
could be a useful lever. During a bilateral human rights dialogue last month,
China rebuked Australia’s treatment of the refugees; Australia is sure to come
in for even harsher criticism when it appears in July 2015 before the United
Nations Human Rights Council.
The International
Criminal Court could also consider whether the indefinite detention at
Villawood and Maribyrnong amounts to crimes against humanity. The United
Nations tribunal report provides ominous evidence of it, and Australia has
accepted the court’s jurisdiction. Australian officials might finally take
notice if they think they could face prison.
Motivation to accede to United Nations demands
may come from yet another source: the United States. Australia regards
Washington as its closest ally and has long followed America’s lead on the
treatment of detainees. For years, the Bush administration contravened United
States Supreme Court rulings on judicial oversight at Guantánamo, where inmates
are held indefinitely under laws of war. And the Obama administration has
dragged its feet on closing Guantánamo, despite clear evidence of human rights
abuses.
But this
month, the American military announced the repatriation of an Algerian who had
been held at Guantánamo without trial for 12 years. Last month, a United States
federal appeals court ruled that the judiciary could hear complaints regarding
conditions at the prison. If America is finally moving toward the more humane
treatment of detainees, Australia should take note.
Clancy's comment: Many thanks to Professor Ben Saul, and to The New York Times. What a disgraceful state of affairs. And to think that all of this is occurring under the watch of our current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott MP, who is supposedly a devout Catholic. It is also under the direct guardianship of a Pentecostal - Scott Morrison MP, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Maybe someone should remind both of them that Mary and Joseph were also refugees.
Amen.
I'm ...
Think about this!
No comments:
Post a Comment