BY
SARAH STEPHEN
The war against Iraq, the US government and its allies say, is being
waged for a just and moral cause — to free the Iraqi people from a despotic
and brutal dictator, to allow the people of Iraq to build a free and democratic
country. It is a war of liberation, they claim.
If the strongest backers of the US war — the governments of Britain
and Australia — were sincere in their rhetoric, they would treat Iraqis
seeking refuge in Britain and Australia with dignity, and immediately commit
to take in significant numbers of refugees created by their war.
In Britain, the opposite is happening — the government has put the processing
of Iraqi asylum seekers on hold “until the situation becomes a bit clearer”.
Home secretary David Blunkett said in February: “I'm looking forward one
way or another ... to not only stopping the flow of asylum seekers but
returning those who are here back to their homes.”
If the people of Iraq were really the primary concern of the Australian
government in waging this war, we could anticipate the granting of full
citizenship rights to the 4000 or so Iraqi refugees on temporary protection
visas (TPVs), bringing to an end their “limbo” status, eliminating the
crippling effects of fear and uncertainty.
We could also anticipate the granting of refugee or humanitarian visas
to the 152 Iraqi asylum seekers who remain locked behind the razor wire
or electric fences of Australia's detention centres. We should also expect
to hear statements from Prime Minister John Howard and immigration minister
Philip Ruddock about the government's willingness to take in a significant
number of the refugees generated by the devastating conflict which is unfolding
in Iraq.
The fact that the opposite is happening demonstrates the complete insincerity
of the government's claim that it is supporting this war to liberate the
Iraqi people from tyranny..
The 4000 Iraqi TPV-holders face being returned to Iraq as soon as Saddam
Hussein has been deposed, despite the devastation that will be inflicted
on Iraq to achieve this goal.
Howard and Ruddock are cocky and self-satisfied about the way their
brutal policy shift in 2001 helped to stem the flow of boats carrying asylum
seekers. But this lull will undoubtedly be short-lived. Australia cannot
be cordoned off from changes in the international political situation.
The effects of the war on Iraq will be felt in this country, regardless
of the brutal measures taken by the Howard government to avoid it.
In 2002, 51,000 Iraqis claimed asylum around the world, already making
them the largest group seeking asylum. As many as 1 million Iraqi refugees
may require resettlement as a result of the US-led war. A further 7.2 million
Iraqis could be displaced within the country. As this human catastrophe
unfolds, many refugees will no doubt flee beyond the countries immediately
bordering Iraq to find safety.
The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), weakened by funding cuts,
is not equipped to deal swiftly and comprehensively with such a crisis.
Many Iraqi refugees will take matters into their own hands and make their
way overland to Europe. Smaller numbers will make the arduous and potentially
dangerous journey to countries further away which have signed the refugee
convention, such as the US, Canada and Australia.
In the 1970s, all Vietnamese people fleeing their country were considered
to be refugees. It is a grave injustice that Iraqis and Afghans have not
been assessed in the same way.
Many Afghans and Iraqis who have spent months and years locked in desert
prisons, their applications for refugee status rejected, missed out simply
because they could not provide documented proof of being individually singled
out for persecution.
Others missed out because they spent more than a few days, perhaps even
a few years, in a country that the Australian government deems “safe”,
even if that country was forcibly returning refugees to their country of
origin, as has been the case with Syria and Pakistan; even if that country
granted them no rights, even to work or send their children to school,
such as Indonesia.
Haydar al Rahal's family suffered greatly for their opposition to Saddam
Hussein's regime. His brother was shot dead and his father disappeared.
Al Rahal was involved in the 1991 uprising against Hussein, which the US
encouraged, then abandoned. Many thousands were slaughtered, but al Rahal
escaped. He came to Australia in 1999, and remains imprisoned — after three-and-a-half
years — in Port Hedland detention centre. He sent an appeal direct to the
minister in August 2001. Eighteen months later, he is still waiting for
a reply.
The Australian government is treating Iraqi refugees, not as victims
of a brutal tyranny, but as if they were also “the enemy”, to be punished
accordingly.
Take the example of the majority of Iraqi asylum seekers still in detention,
113 of whom have been imprisoned on Nauru and Manus Island, in Papua New
Guinea, for the past 18 months. Among the detainees on Nauru are seven
Iraqi women and their 12 children. The women remain separated from their
husbands, who are in Australia on TPVs. After a fire at State House detention
camp in January, where the Iraqis were detained, power and water supplies
were cut, and detainees only had enough food for one meal per day.
Bronwyn Adcock, an SBS journalist, gained entry to the camp to interview
Iraqi refugees. They told her the story of one man who had been approved
as a refugee by the UNHCR but was locked up before the arrival of a New
Zealand plane to prevent him joining his family to be resettled in New
Zealand. He was labelled by the International Organisation for Migration
(IOM), which manages the Nauru camp, as a “troublemaker” because he spoke
out about the conditions in detention.
On March 14, some Iraqi detainees were told that one of their friends,
who had been taken away two days earlier, had died. Demanding that IOM
officials tell them if this was true, they were told it was not, but IOM
refused to let them speak to the man to prove that he was still alive.
Reports of the death have also been denied by a spokesperson for the immigration
minister, yet at the same time Ruddock has issued no statements raging
against refugee advocates for “fabricating outrageous lies” — an opportunity
he would rarely miss.
What's more, phone contact with Nauru has been cut since March 14, making
it impossible for refugee advocates to contact detainees. There is a great
deal of fear and panic among detainees, who continue to believe that their
friend has died, and that the Australian government and IOM want to cover
it up.
We should demand an end to the government's hypocrisy — if it is truly
interested in the human rights of the Iraqi people, the Australian government
should immediately release all Iraqi asylum seekers from detention and
let them stay here on humanitarian grounds. It should end the suffering
of Iraqi TPV holders and grant them permanent protection.
All Iraqi asylum seekers who arrive here should be granted protection,
but they shouldn't have to risk their lives to find their way to safety.
Those countries able to offer protection should assist them to make the
journey, as they did during the 1970s and early 1980s with Vietnamese refugees.
Australia resettled 150,000 Vietnamese people, 55,000 taken in as refugees
(including 2000 who came on boats) and a further 95,000 through family
reunion.
The impending humanitarian crisis in Iraq demands the same response.
This is the very least the Howard government owes to the people it is helping
to bomb to smithereens in the name of their “liberation”.
From Green Left Weekly, April 2, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.
