BY SARAH STEPHEN
During the month of April, 85 of the 264 Iranian asylum seekers held in Australia's detention centres — those who have exhausted all avenues for appeal — were given a letter explaining that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed on March 13 by the governments of Australia and Iran allowed for their forcible deportation, and that they had 28 days to agree to leave.
The final paragraph of the letter indicated what would happen if they refused: "You and family members accompanying you in Australia, should consider carefully your options for voluntary return to Iran. If you choose not to accept voluntary return within the 28 days, plans for your involuntary removal will begin, and you will be removed from Australia as soon as practicable."
Those Iranians whose 28 days recently expired were given a final chance to sign an agreement for voluntary deportation. On May 8, ABC Radio National's Background Briefing program spoke to Morteza, an Iranian held in Villawood detention centre, who explained that he had been told that, having refused to return voluntarily, he could now be deported at any time — by force if necessary.
Federal Court action is underway to stop the deportation of 79 Iranian asylum seekers most danger of being deported and, as a result, immigration minister Philip Ruddock has promised to give 48 hours' notice of any deportation. To date, none have been forcibly returned to Iran.
There are two reasons to suspect that the Australian government is bluffing about the contents of the MOU.
The first is a leaked departmental document, revealed by the May 2 Australian Financial Review, which outline a proposed strategy for returning Iranian asylum seekers. The author of the document, John Okley, assistant secretary of international operations in the immigration department, returned from a visit to Iran in September, where he tried to soften Tehran's strong reservations about taking back large numbers of involuntary returnees.
Okley cited a conversation with the Iranian director-general of consular affairs, a Mr Ansari, who "stressed that the implementation of efforts to minimise the potential involuntary case load, possibly to zero, would be critical".
It is highly unlikely that Tehran will agree to anything other than a very small number of deportations, and only if the majority of Iranians in detention can be persuaded to return voluntarily. Canberra's task, therefore, is to convince — or intimidate — most of the 264 Iranians in detention to leave voluntarily.
The second reason for suspicion about the contents of the MOU is Canberra's refusal to make the document public. Ordered to table it in the Senate on March 25, the government refused. On March 27, speaking on behalf of Ruddock, Senator Helen Coonan told the Senate: "The government does not consider it to be in the public interest to table the MOU in the Senate. The MOU, which deals with sensitive immigration matters, was signed on the understanding that it is a confidential agreement between governments that will not be released publicly at this time."
Yet, according to Background Briefing, "the Iranian embassy originally had no objection to the MOU being publicly released, and that it's only the department of immigration which insisted on secrecy".
It is most likely that the MOU allows for only a limited number of deportations, but the secrecy surrounding it allows the government to terrorise Iranians into agreeing to return. That's only having limited effect so far, with six agreeing to voluntarily return.
The Iranian government has no interest in accepting the forced return of asylum seekers. While there are only a few hundred Iranian asylum seekers in Australia, there are many thousands in European countries.
Why would Tehran make an agreement with Canberra which could set the precedent for a far larger number of forced returns of opponents of the Iranian authorities? There must be something in it for Tehran. Canberra must have offered Iran a number of sweeteners.
One such sweetener could have been an agreement to crackdown on the activities of Iranian opposition groups in Australia. Was it merely coincidence that a week after foreign minister Alexander Downer returned from Iran and an Iranian parliamentary delegation spent five days in Australia, Australian Federal Police raided the houses of 29 suspected members of the Iranian terrorist group Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (MEK), taking documents and computer equipment?
But the purpose of the raids went far beyond finding information about MEK supporters. Listed on the raid warrants were the Refugee Action Collective and two Iranian refugee organisations active in Australia. Undoubtedly, the aim of the raids was to further intimidate Iranians living in Australia, especially those still on temporary visas, and to imply that refugees' rights organisations are defending terrorists.
There are also suspicions that Iran may have been offered some sweeteners on trade and investment. Background Briefing reported rumours about a subsidised wheat deal, and about plans to expand an existing twinning arrangement between Monash University and a private university on the Iranian island of Kish, a free trade zone notorious for smuggling and other illicit activities.
There is one question which looms large for many people following this issue: Why is Australia so desperate to get rid of a tiny number of Iranians?
The answer: It's the litmus test. If the combination of voluntary returns and deportations is successful in removing 264 Iranians from Australia, the government can take its next step.
A Just Australia executive director Howard Glenn told Background Briefing: "This is part of a larger picture. This is the opening of a game that the government is going to play out over the next few months of putting the issue of deportation of refugees, not just failed asylum seekers, but deportation of refugees onto the Australian political map."
It's a warning to asylum seekers from other countries: You think we're bluffing about sending you back by force? Look what we did to the Iranians. If we can send them back by force to a country like Iran, do you have any doubt that we'll do the same to you?
Since July 1999, 9524 people have arrived in Australia by boat and claimed asylum. The vast majority were from Afghanistan and Iraq. 8409 people — 88% — were found to be refugees, but only granted temporary protection visas (TPVs) which gave them limited rights and required reassessment after three years, with a visa renewal dependent on their continuing need for protection.
To date, no TPV-holders have had their visas renewed. All Afghan TPV-holders have been placed on an open-ended Class XC bridging visa, which removes the requirement for the immigration department to meet any deadline in deciding their future. Refugees could be left waiting for six months or six years, and at any point they could be told that within two weeks they will be forced to leave their new home and return to the country they fled from.
Many hundreds of Afghan asylum seekers in detention have returned to Afghanistan voluntarily — the bulk of them were held on Nauru. According to the immigration department, 125 Afghans still held on Nauru have signed the consent form for voluntary repatriation but are still waiting for passports. Escaping the hell of indefinite detention on Nauru, even if it means possible death back in Afghanistan, is understandable.
But for the thousands of Afghans living in Australia on temporary visas, the government has a much harder task. They've built new lives in Australia. They remain fearful of the volatile and unstable situation in Afghanistan. To date, only a handful of TPV-holders have voluntarily returned.
The Australian government already has a MOU with the government of Afghanistan, which provides for the voluntary return of Afghan refugees to their homeland. But another leaked memo to Ruddock, also written by Okley, makes it abundantly clear that Kabul doesn't want forcible returns.
"In our many discussions with the Afghan authorities over the last year, a key concern of the Afghans has been the need to preserve the dignity of their nationals in the return process", Okley noted, adding: "And that they will be seeking to minimise the numbers of persons facing involuntary return."
The Australian government needs to raise the stakes with a credible threat if it wants to scare more Afghan TPV-holders, and Iraqis after them, into agreeing to return voluntarily. This is what lies behind the threats to deport Iranian asylum seekers.
From Green Left Weekly, June 18, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.