Australia: Deportations of Iranian Refugees 10.05.2003

no-racism.net | deportatiNO

see alos: Australian Asylum Policy and Resistance. Info Nights and Video Screening, from May 12 to May 17 in Innsbruck, Linz, Vienna and Graz. View details in english, deutsch oder francais		Australia: Deportations of Iranian Refugees The Australian Financial Review (2nd May 2003) carried an article by Julie Macken under the heading “Ruddock's Iran deal shrouded in doubt”. There has been talk for some while of a secret deal between the Howard Government and the regime in Iran involving a trade-off of work visas for Iranian nationals - those in favour with the regime, of course - and agreement by the Iranian Government to accept involuntary repatriation, something they have refused up to now, presumably out of fear that such acceptance would prove the proverbial thin end of the wedge leading to the return of the hundreds of thousands of Iranian refugees currently in Europe. There have been suggestions that no such agreement exists, but that the threat of involuntary repatriation on this basis was being used as a form of blackmail to induce Iranians in Australia to sign a document of consent to repatriation, with the “sweetener” of a financial package similar to that used to get rid of Afghani refugees. This is taken from porthedland.nomasters.org - go there for more datails. The full text of Julie Macken's article is not available free-to-view on the AFR website, but though it has beeen circulated on newsgroups, we can document it here: Ruddock's Iran deal shrouded in doubt Author: Julie Macken Date: 02/05/2003 Words: 1761 Publication: The Australian Financial Review Section: Australia Page: 88 Source: AFR On March 13, Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock claimed to have signed a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The minister said Iran had agreed to the involuntary repatriation of 277 Iranian detainees in Australian detention centres. There is real doubt such an agreement exists. The Iranian embassy in Canberra denies Iran has agreed to accept any forced repatriation. Its position is "business as usual", according to a spokesman. "We shall not accept the forced repatriation of Iranians from any country." The embassy does concede that detainees deposited in Iran could not be rejected. Meanwhile, the government has refused a Senate demand to table the memorandum of understanding. Helen Coonan, speaking on behalf of Ruddock, told the Senate: "The government does not consider it to be in the public interest to table the MOU in the Senate. It was signed on the understanding that it is a confidential agreement between governments that will not be released publicly at any time." While the MOU and its contents remain a mystery to everyone outside the Department of Immigration, The Australian Financial Review has learnt that departmental officials told Iranian detainees being held in South Australia's Baxter detention centre last Monday that they had 28 days to accept returning voluntarily or face the dire consequences of involuntary repatriation. Australian Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett says the situation has the hallmarks "of the usual combination of half-truths, secrecy and blackmail that has characterised the government's dealings with these vulnerable people". So, political rhetoric aside, what is going on behind the walls of Baxter, and what is the truth behind the MOU? Iranian detainees are the largest group of asylum seekers in Australia and have been in detention the longest - some for almost four years. Their claims for protection have been rejected. The limited scope for appeal has been exhausted. However, because the Iranian government has steadfastly refused to accept any involuntary return of nationals - from Australia and Europe - our government has been unwilling to place them in the community and unable to find third countries to accept them. This is why the United Nations Working Party on Arbitrary Detention found Australia guilty of "arbitrary and indefinite detention" of asylum seekers - and therefore in breach of the Refugee Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While the war against Iraq has cleared the way for the removal of Iraqi refugees from Australia, the problem of Iranian asylum seekers remains. Without regime change in Iran, it's not considered safe for refugees to return. This is why, according to departmental documents obtained by the AFR, John Okley, assistant secretary of international co-operation in the Department of Immigration, put together a strategy last December entitled "Return of Iranian Nationals; Update on negotiations and proposed next steps". The document is a plan for the repatriation of Iranian nationals, and the author suggests a two-pronged approach. "Encouraging voluntary departures" would be done by offering detainees inducements: $2000 per person; waiving the cost of their accommodation in detention; giving them the status of a returnee, rather than a deportee; and supplying them with airfares and travel documents. Further, the Australian government would secure the support of the Iranian government by offering Iran a work and holiday visa program, so Iranian nationals could work and study in Australia. The second part of Okley's strategy involves 'the creation of a credible threat of involuntary removal". That threat would be telling detainees that Iran was now willing to accept their involuntary repatriation. He then suggests the department target a specific group of detainees first. "In particular, we would be seeking to include those who have attempted self-harm or committed acts of violence within the centres." It appears a number of people fall into the category of self-harm and suicide risk. The Iranian detainees are among the most traumatised and brutalised people within Australia's camps. Having spent the last three to four years behind razor wire, many, particularly women and children, are now in a state described by one former Australasian Correctional Management psychologist as "psychically disintegrated". A spokesman for Ruddock told the AFR the document and its contents were only a draft, and therefore "the department has no further comment to make". Okley finishes his document by enclosing a letter which he suggests be given to detainees as soon as "the Iranian authorities agree on involuntary removals". Last Monday, detainees received that letter. They were told they had 28 days to agree to their voluntary return or they would be forcibly returned, and, yes, Iran had agreed to accept their forcible return. The Iranian Embassy spokesman told the AFR: "We are pleased the Australian government is encouraging people to return to Iran voluntarily. But Iran does not want any involuntary repatriation and we accept no responsibility for Iranians living in Australia that do not want to return to Iran. But if the Australian government put Iranians on a plane and dumped them on our tarmac, obviously we would not reject them. No country can reject its own nationals." This seems far from the agreement the federal government says it has. But it does introduce the spectre of forcible return. A spokesman for Ruddock said: "The MOU is very clear. The Iranian ambassador here may or may not be appraised of that, or he may have misunderstood. The minister and the Iranian government have signed an MOU which allows for the involuntary return of people who have no entitlement to remain in Australia." As the government refuses to release the MOU for scrutiny, this assertion can only be accepted on faith. Okley warned Ruddock that just such a situation might arise: "The only other country to have achieved progress on this issue to date is Switzerland, which has reportedly secured the agreement of the local Iranian embassy to the deportation of up to 100 Iranians. They have advised that they have only achieved one return to date." It appears that, when Tehran found out about the arrangement with Switzerland, it reversed the decision. This is not surprising. While Iran would like access to a work and holiday visa program, it knows that if it accepts the involuntary return of 277 Iranian nationals from Australia, it faces the prospect of having to accept the hundreds of thousands of Iranian nationals living in Europe. It is not a circumstance any country would welcome, not when unemployment is up around 20 per cent. In a further development, and one that has potentially far-reaching consequences, Josh Bornstein, of the Melbourne firm Maurice Blackburn, appealed to the Federal Court last week on behalf of an Iranian asylum seeker. The federal government is attempting to have the case struck out before it is heard, but Bornstein is hopeful the court will allow it to proceed. The case concerns the power of the minister for immigration to remove "unlawful non-citizens" under section 198 of the Migration Act. The minister argues that he has unlimited power to remove any asylum seeker who has failed to secure refugee status. "We argue," says Bornstein, "the Migration Act is a statute that should be interpreted in accordance with Australia's international treaty obligations, particularly the Refugee Convention and the Torture Convention. "Article 33 of the Refugee Convention says that no state shall return a refugee to a place where his or her life or liberty is threatened. The Torture Convention states that no state can send a person to a place where there is a real prospect of torture. "We argue that the government is putting our client at risk of losing his life, liberty and facing torture." The Refugee Review Tribunal has already found that Bornstein's client is not entitled to be a refugee. However, Bornstein argues that the court should be able to look at the issue independently of the RRT and that the RRT does not have a perfect track record. The crux of the debate, he says, is whether the minister has unlimited power to send asylum seekers anywhere. "If that is the case, Philip Ruddock could choose to send someone to a desert island or back to certain death," he says. However, the alternative is to have the minister's power mediated by Australia's international treaty obligations. That's not a situation this federal government would welcome, despite the concern the Prime Minister expressed about the human rights of Iraqi citizens before Australia got involved in the war against Iraq. The RRT and the federal government have consistently argued that Iranian asylum seekers, while sometimes facing discrimination, do not face persecution in Iran. It appears this is no longer the opinion of many in the UN. A team of UN experts has recently completed its first mission in Iran for seven years. Its findings offer little comfort to Iranian returnees or deportees. The head of the mission, Louis Joinet, told journalists in the United Kingdom that Iran was detaining dissidents and others without due process on a "large scale" and keeping them in solitary confinement.	further Information on: porthedland.nomasters.org on the Situation in Iran: www.hrw.org www.ecoi.net www.amnesty.org www.humanrights.de

---

www.no-racism.net