Manus Island: Refugees refuse to leave Australian centre
Refugees held by Australia in Papua New Guinea (PNG) have launched legal action over the closure of a detention centre.
Australia holds asylum seekers arriving by boat in camps on PNG's Manus Island and the small Pacific nation of Nauru.
The Manus Island centre is scheduled to close on Tuesday after a PNG court ruled it was unconstitutional.
Detainees argue the closure will breach their human rights by denying them access to water, electricity and security. Many are refusing to leave.
The local authorities said that all electricity, drinking water and food at the centre would cease at 17:00 local time (07:00 GMT), and that PNG defence authorities could enter the centre as early as Wednesday.
Refugees told the BBC that detainees planned to protest peacefully, and had begun stockpiling water and dry biscuits, as well as setting up makeshift catchments for rainwater.
They claimed that local residents began looting the compound on Tuesday after security guards left.
Under a controversial policy, Australia refuses to take in anyone trying to reach its territories unofficially by boat. They are all intercepted and held in the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres.
Why don't refugees want to leave?
About 600 asylum seekers have been told to leave the camp, but many have reportedly barricaded themselves inside due to fears for their safety if transferred to temporary accommodation in the Manus Island community.
The news has raised concerns of a possible siege at the facility.
"Navy and police [are] heavily armed, but we don't know who they want to go to war with, locals or refugees. So scary," tweeted Manus detainee Behrouz Boochani.
Mr Boochani added that "angry" locals were protesting in front of the camp chanting "don't come out".
Last week, Human Rights Watch warned that the group could face "unchecked violence" by local people who had attacked them in the past - sometimes with machetes and rocks.
Where would they go?
Canberra has consistently ruled out transferring the men to Australia, arguing it would encourage human trafficking and lead to deaths at sea.
However, PNG has said it is Australia's responsibility to provide ongoing support for the detainees. The Australian government says PNG is responsible for them.
The refugees can permanently resettle in PNG, apply to live in Cambodia, or request a transfer to Nauru, but advocates say few have taken up these options.
Some men already in the temporary accommodation were "comfortably accessing services and supports there", Australia's Department for Immigration and Border Protection said on Tuesday.
A separate resettlement deal struck with the Obama administration in 2016 saw the US agree to take up to 1,250 refugees from the PNG and Nauru centres.
Last month, a group of about 50 people from the detention centres became the first to be accepted by the US under the agreement.
The agreement, which is being administered under the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR, is prioritising women, children and families and other refugees found to be the most vulnerable.
However, the US has not given an estimate of how long the application process will take and it is not obliged to accept all of them.
How will the closure affect detainees?
Greg Barns, a lawyer assisting with the legal action, said the closure would breach rights enshrined in PNG's constitution.
"The men are vulnerable to attacks and physical harm so we are seeking to ensure their constitutional rights are not breached and there is a resumption of the basic necessities of life," he told the BBC.
"The men have been dumped on the street, literally. What is going on is unlawful."
The application also seeks to prevent the forcible removal of the men to an alternative centre on the island, and calls for them to be transferred to Australia or a safe third country.
'Australia's Guantanamo'
Australia first opened Manus Island centre in 2001. It was closed in 2008 and re-opened in 2012.
Six asylum seekers have died since 2013, including Iranian man Reza Barati who was murdered during a riot.
Earlier this year, the government offered compensation totalling A$70m (£41m; $53m) to asylum seekers and refugees detained on Manus Island who alleged they had suffered harm while there.
The lawsuit alleged that detainees had been housed in inhumane conditions below Australian standards, given inadequate medical treatment and exposed to systemic abuse and violence.
The government called the financial settlement "prudent", but denied wrongdoing.
Citation: “Manus Island: Refugees Refuse to Leave Australia Centre.” BBC News, BBC, 31 Oct. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-41812189.
Response: I think that the refugee problem is something to which we should dedicate much thought and effort to resolve. This article published by BBC highlights one instance in which refugees are facing a new crisis with the closure of a camp. Like many other cases, it is like a game of hot-potato as the authorities try to avoid responsibility for the refugees. Neither PNG or Australia are willing to support them long-term and claim that it is the other country's responsibility. This article is biased towards the refugees and their plight, focusing on their struggles and the consequences that closing the center will have for them. Although some aspects of the aid were presented, they were mainly given negatively to emphasize how little has actually been done. Money is given as compensation for great harm and lack of concern for human rights. This article is probably posted for a large audience, both males and females of a middle-class standing. From what I can tell, the purpose of this publication is to raise awareness for the refugees so that more might be done to help them.
In my opinion, I think that countries should be more willing to advocate for refugees and provide them with adequate human rights. More people obviously would put some strain on any country that took them under their wing, but I think that it should be a global priority to seek the good of refugees, then figure out the logistics later. Much division today arises from the fact that humans are overly concerned with their own advancement when we could be working as a global community. If everyone was looking to help where needed, global advancement with healthy society would be more plausible.
Comments
Post a Comment