• Memorializing mass deaths at the border: two cases from Canberra (Australia) and Lampedusa (Italy)

    In this paper, we compare two seemingly very similar instances in which individuals and organizations within the borders of the global North have memorialized the deaths of irregular migrants at sea: the #SIEV_X_memorial in Australia’s national capital Canberra, and the #Giardino_della_memoria (Garden of Remembrance) on the Italian island of Lampedusa. Unlike ephemeral manifestations of grief, potentially these memorials have effects that reach well beyond their creation. We relate the differences between the memorials to the contexts within which they were created: an immediate local response involving people directly affected by the disaster’s aftermath, on the one hand, and a delayed nation-wide response involving people removed from the deaths at sea, on the other. We also discuss the difference between a memorial that names and thereby individualizes victims, and one that does not, and between one that celebrates an alternative, hospitable society, and one that does not.

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2017.1394477
    #mémoire #Italie #migrations #Australie #réfugiés #asile #mémoriels #monuments #Canberra #Lampedusa #morts #décès #mourir_aux_frontières #victimes

  • ‘Turning back boats’

    What does a policy of ‘turning back boats’ involve?

    #Operation_Relex

    A policy of ‘turning back boats’ was introduced by the Howard Government on 3 September 2001. Under this policy, named Operation Relex, the Royal Australian Navy was directed to intercept and board ‘Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels’ (#SIEVs) – that is, boats that were suspected of carrying people seeking to come to Australia without a visa – when they entered Australia’s contiguous zone (24 nautical miles from the Australian coast).1 The Navy was directed to return these boats to the edge of Indonesian territorial waters, either by operating the boat under its own engine power or attaching the boat to an Australian vessel and towing it.2 The aim of Operation Relex was to deter people from arriving in Australia by boat by denying them access to Australia.3

    Operation Relex ended on 13 March 2002 to enable information relating to the operation to be made available to the Senate Select Committee’s Inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident.4 It was succeeded by Operation Relex II, which commenced on 14 March 2002 and ended on 16 July 2006.5

    #Operation_Sovereign_Borders

    The Abbott Government’s policy is to turn back boats ‘where it is safe to do so’.6 This is a key component of ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’, the government’s military-led inter-agency border security initiative.7 News reports indicate that since 5 January 2014 asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia by boat from Indonesia have been intercepted, loaded on to single-use lifeboats and towed back to just outside Indonesian waters.8 At a Senate Estimates hearing in February 2014 it was revealed that $2.5m had been spent to purchase the lifeboats. 9

    In late June 2014, Australian authorities intercepted two boats of Sri Lankan asylum seekers. The first group, comprised of 37 Sinhalese and four Tamil asylum seekers, was returned directly to Sri Lankan authorities at sea after a cursory ‘enhanced screening’ process to determine whether or not they raised any ‘credible’ protection claims.10 The second group, comprised of 157 Tamil asylum seekers, had set sail from a refugee camp in India. They, too, were subjected to enhanced screening, and then were detained on an Australian Customs vessel for four weeks while the Australian government negotiated with Indian authorities about their possible return. When India refused, they were taken briefly to the Australian mainland and then transferred to offshore detention on Nauru.11 A case was brought before the High Court of Australia on behalf of one of the asylum seekers. Among other things, it was argued that the Australian government had unlawfully detained the asylum seekers at sea.12

    The case was heard in October 2014, and the judgment was handed down in January 2015.13 By a narrow 4:3 majority, the High Court held that the detention was not contrary to Australian law. It is important to stress that the decision turned on an interpretation of the scope of powers conferred on Australian officials under a domestic statute (the Maritime Powers Act). The judges did not engage in any detailed analysis of whether such detention was lawful under international law.14

    In November 2014, Australian authorities intercepted a boat carrying 38 Sri Lankan asylum seekers.15 The asylum seekers were assessed under the enhanced screening process, which took place on board the Border Protection Command vessel.16 All but one asylum seeker were handed over to the Sri Lankan navy, with that one individual being transferred to an offshore processing facility to further investigate their asylum claims.17

    A total of 15 boats were turned back between 19 December 2013 and January 2015,19 with four of these turnbacks involving the use of Australian-supplied lifeboats.20 Another boat was intercepted in early February 2015. The four asylum seekers on board that boat were subjected to enhanced screening at sea and then transferred to Sri Lankan authorities.21

    On 20 March 2015 a boatload of 46 Vietnamese asylum seekers were intercepted by Australian authorities and returned directly to Vietnam on 18 April, after being subject to an interview process known as ‘enhanced screening’.22 The Commander of Operation Sovereign Borders, Major General Andrew Bottrell, described this return as a ‘take-back’ rather than a ‘turn-back’, as it was a situation in which Australia worked ‘with a country of departure in order to see the safe return of passengers and crew’.23 In May 2015 news outlets reported that a boatload of 65 asylum seekers had crashed onto a reef off West Timor after being intercepted, transferred to another boat and taken back to Indonesian waters by Australian authorities.24

    http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/%E2%80%98turning-back-boats%E2%80%99
    #push-back #refoulement #asile #migration #réfugiés #Australie #Indonésie

  • The #Leaky_Boats (Documentary)

    A moving documentary about how the Australian Government used the Refugee Boats as a mechanism to boost it’s standing in the Polls during the election to clinch a victory and keep John Howard in Parliament

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c_phJsx1NE

    #documentaire #film #migration #asile #réfugiés #Australie #refugee_boats #haute-mer #externalisation #Manus_island #Nauru #Pacific_solution

    • 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