person:john howard

Out of sight, out of mind : excising Australia from the migration zone

The migration zone is any place in Australia where a person arriving without a valid visa - what is technically called “without lawful authority” - can still make a valid visa application.

It is distinct from the territory of Australia and might best be understood as a legal boundary within which people arriving without valid visas can still fall under the remit of the Migration Act of 1958. Protections afforded by the Migration Act - in addition to being permitted to apply for asylum - include having asylum claims processed in Australia, rather than in a detention centre such as Manus Island or Nauru

▻https://theconversation.com/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-excising-australia-from-the-migration-zone

#migration_zone

–-> on explique très bien dans cet article aussi l’histoire du #Tampa et de #Arne_Rinnan :

To understand how we started tinkering with the boundaries of the migration zone, one must go back to 2001 and the so-called Tampa Affair. In August 2001, Captain Arne Rinnan rescued 433 asylum seekers from their sinking boat and sheltered them on his freighter, the MV Tampa. He then made the decision to head to Christmas Island (which was at the time still in Australia’s migration zone) for the safety of his vessel, the crew and the people he had rescued.

As a way to solve what then prime minister John Howard viewed as a direct challenge to border security in the aftermath of September 11 terrorist attacks, he proposed and had passed legislation that re-defined Christmas Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Australian sea and resources installations as well as any other external territories, or state or territory islands, prescribed by regulations as “excised offshore places”. Importantly, this legislation was also retrospective.

With a stroke of the proverbial parliamentary pen, while the Tampa asylum seekers had reached Australian territory, they were no longer in the “migration zone” and were subsequently removed to offshore detention centres.

http://i.imgur.com/uq3qxF0.png

#cartographie #visualisation

Voir aussi ce décret de #Reagan mentionné dans l’article « Immigration Enforcement and the Afterlife of the Slave Ship » :

But in our present day, it began in earnest with President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12324 of 1981, also called the Haitian Migrant Interdiction Operation (HMIO), which exclusively tasked the USCG to “interdict” Haitian asylum seekers attempting to enter the United States by sea routes on unauthorized sailing vessels. Such people were already beginning to be derogatorily referred to as “boat people,” a term then borrowed (less derogatorily) into Haitian Kreyòl as botpippel.

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/901628

#Angleterre, 2021 :

Asylum seekers deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally will no longer have the same entitlements as those who arrive in the country via legal routes. Even if their claim is successful, they will be granted temporary refugee status and face the prospect of being indefinitely liable for removal.

https://seenthis.net/messages/921443

#UK

Reprise du #modèle_australien et son concept de l’#excision_territoriale par les Etats-Unis :

“People intercepted at sea, even in U.S. waters, have fewer rights than those who come by land. “Asylum does not apply at sea,” a Coast Guard spokesperson told me. Even people who are fleeing violence, rape and death, who on land would be likely to pass an initial asylum screening, are routinely sent back to the countries they’ve fled.”

#USA #Etats-Unis

Rethinking the leaky boats

For me, the most powerful part of last night’s ABC refugee documentary “Leaky Boat” was not the confirmation that we unnecessarily denied refuge to 438 asylum seekers - or even that we broke numerous international laws doing so - but this line:

▻http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/26178

J’ai enfin réussi à regarder le documentaire, je vais mettre ici la trame et quelques extraits...

26.08.2001 : 433 réfugiés s’approchent des côtes australiennes.
Le « #Tampa » boat (un cargo norvégien) répond à un appel des secours et s’approche du bateau de #réfugiés pour le sauvetage.
Les réfugiés sont sauvés et montés à bord du Tampa, mais le capitaine du Tampa reçoit l’ordre de ne pas s’approcher des côtes australiennes.
Tampa était un bateau norvégien, s’il avait été australien, son capitaine, #Arne_Rinan, aurait été emprisonné en Australie dès son entrée sur le territoire australien.

L’opinion publique et les politiciens s’enflamment (c’est temps d’élection). John Howard disant notamment que les réfugiés n’ont qu’à faire la queue dans les ambassades pour demander un visa...

7’50 : Mais "some basics facts have been left out of the loop :
– in Afghanistan or Irak, there was no Australian embassy. The idea of a queue was a fantasy
– The people on the boats were not « illegals », Australia’s laws gave them the right to seek asylum
– the most basic fact : the numbers :
Brigadier Gary BORNHOLDT, Head of Military Public Affairs « In defence, it was not a big deal, because the number of the people was very very small. That’s why they did not represent a security threat »
Admiral Chris BARRIE, Chief of Australian Defence Force : « We don’t actually remember that much of the illegal immigration takes place at airports »

8’50 : Carmen LAWRENCE, Labor member of the Parliament : « It has to be described as a ’moral panic’ »

3 jours après le sauvetage, le capitaine du Tampa décide d’entrer dans les eaux australiennes (surtout car certains réfugiés nécessitaient d’une assistance médicale urgente). Il a fait cela « to get the reaction ». Et la réaction a été que... l’Australie a envoyé le counter-terrorism squat (SAS).

15’50 : Major Peter TINLEY : « I said, well, they are a bunch of refugees. I can’t help to feel that the Prime Minister John Howard viewed the SAS as something that would resony politically to the message of border security. You can’t amp it up more in the public’s mind that in saying ’we’ve gonna send the SAS, we’ll show how though we are in border security ».

Mais... le Tampa n’a pas pu être renvoyé dans les #eaux_internationales par les SAS.

La Nouvelle Zélande a offert son aide en disant voulant accueillir les enfants et les familles de réfugiés. Mais quid des autres réfugiés ?

The island of #Nauru was a place that most Australians never heard about. It was 4000 km from Sidney. The smallest Republic in the world. A nation of just 12’000 people, living on 21 km2, and an economy based on guano mining. The guano was running out, and Nauru was closed to bankrupcy.
Phone calls were made to Nauru’s President. 8 days after they have been rescued, the refugees left the Tampa for an Australian navy ship.
But... there was actually an issue in Australia’s arrangment with Nauru : when the Australian ship took on board the refugees, there was no agreement between Australia and Nauru.

Peter REITH, Minister of Defence, was sent to Nauru : « I said to John : ’I think we should give them whatever the want ».
Le Président de Nauru a demandé 20 mio. de dollars australiens... qui lui ont été donnés !

From now on, the boats would be stopped. The government would sent the navy to turn them back in a new operation called #Operation_Relex. The arrival of boats has past from an immigration issue into a defence issue. The leaky boats were now called #SIEV (#Suspected_illegal_entry_vessels). With the Operation Relex, when SIEV would approach, the navy executed the order.
Within a week that Relex started, the navy had nearly 1000 refugees in their hands.
–-> L’ordre donné par les militaires « retourner en Indonésie » n’était jamais exécuté par les réfugiés, qui restaient donc juste en decà des eaux internationales australiennes, sans bouger.

A decision came from Canberra : bring the people to #Manus_Island.

Jenny McKERRY, Head of public affairs, Department of Defence : « We were told not to say anything in the public form which would humanise those people »
Head of military public affairs : « They wanted to portray that these were not normal people »

Entre temps... 11 septembre 2001.

Et SIEV 4 s’approche des côtes... et encore une fois les personnes à bord ne veulent pas retourner en Indonésie.

Et là, l’histoire de la couverture médiatique de SIEV 4.

Le bateau militaire HMAS Adelaide s’approche de SIEV 4 pour leur dire de retourner en Indonésie. A l’équipage on dit qu’il pourrait y avoir des terroristes à bord. Quand HMAS s’approche de SIEV 4, ils tirent des coup en l’air. Quelques réfugiés décident de se jeter à l’eau. D’autres montrent soulèvent des enfants, pour montrer à HMAS qu’il y a des enfants à bord. L’équipage de HMAS appelle Canberra pour dire que des adultes se sont jetés dans l’eau et qu’il y a des enfants à bord. Canberra averti les médias en disant que les réfugiés jettent les enfants à l’eau... L’indignation s’empare du pays « qui peuvent bien être ses sauvages qui jettent leurs enfants à l’eau »...
En réalité, le HMAS a attendu que le SIEV 4 coule pour pouvoir sauver les réfugiés...

Able Seaman Bec LYND, membre de l’équipage du HMAS : « We thought that when we would return to Australia, we would have commend for the job we did » (i.e. rescuing the refugees), « but the captain told us that some photos that has been sent from the ship had been misinterpreted. From that came the story that the people we rescued had thrown the children overboard. He said he was absolutely obviously not true, but we were told not to talk to the media or to our families »

Les réfugiés sauvés ont ensuite été envoyés sur les îles de Nauru et Manus.

A refugee : « Actually, we felt that we are not on the world anymore, we are somewhere wehre nobody had an idea ».

3 weeks before elections, Relex was not achieving its objective : not a single boat had been turned back. The government’s response : escalate Relex. From now on, instead of trying to turn boats back, the navy would board them and send them all the way back to Indonesia.

Témoignage d’un réfugiés qui était dans un bateau, arrivé après SIEV 4 : « We thought we had to throw the children in water, becaue in the other boat they did and the navy accepted them ».
–-> en réalité, ce même réfugié a fait seulement semblant de jeter son enfant, pour attendre la réaction de la marine.

« We created a high risk situation, where it is the interest of the people in the boat to sink the boat »

Quelques jours/semaines après, un bateau avec 353 réfugiés à bord a coulé à cause d’une tempête. Tous les réfugiés sont morts.
–-> John Howard : « This has been a terrible tragedy. Terrible. It was heart breaking, with little children. But we sent them a message ’Don’t try in the first place, because you’re not going to succeed ».
(et, assez insupportable, Howard a les larmes aux yeux en disant cela !!! ARRRGHHHH)

Et 3 jours avant les élections, les médias annoncent la nouvelle comme quoi l’histoire des enfants « never happened ». Pourtant, malgré cela, cette annonce, au lieu de plomber Howard dans les projections électorales, l’a boosté.

« In the end, in the people who came on boat in the spring of 2001, 70% were found to be genuine refugees. Today the majority of them are living in Australia. People we spent hundreds of milions of dollars to stop »

cc @reka

#arne_rinan #tampa #australie