By Lisa Cornish
 |
| Tents inside Australia's immigration detention facility in Manus Island, Papua New Guinea. Photo by: Green MPs / CC BY-NC-ND |
U.S. President Donald Trump appeared to raise questions as to whether he would honor an accord between the U.S. and Australian governments on refugee resettlement late Wednesday, despite Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s insistence earlier this week that the deal was still on.
Writing on Twitter late Wednesday night, Trump said, “The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!” That statement was followed by a report in the Washington Post recounting a testy exchange between the two leaders that the U.S. president ended after just 25 minutes.
On Tuesday, Turnbull had told media that Trump agreed to honor the agreement during their phone call on Sunday.
The exchange has further clouded an already uncertain agreement through which the United States was set to resettle refugees currently on Manus Island and Nauru. Neither the United States nor Australia has confirmed how many refugees might be resettled and on what timeline. These decisions are now “entirely in the hands of United States Government's agencies,” Turnbull said on Tuesday.
“It’s up to the US government and has always been up to the US government as to how they do the resettlement process,” Merryn Royle, media advisor to Australia’s immigration minister, Peter Dutton, told Devex on Tuesday. “They have never put a timeframe on it and they have said they will not provide a rolling commentary on the process. It’s continuing, it will continue and essentially it in the U.S.’s hands.”
For Australia, the deal aims to provide a conclusion for refugees currently in limbo on Manus Island and Nauru. The deal could reduce international criticism of Australia’s refugee policy. The Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea has ruled the detention on Manus Island to be illegal, and U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants François Crépeau called the policy “cruel, inhuman and degrading” after his November visit to Australia. The majority of the 1,254 refugees currently held on Manus Island and Nauru have been there for more than 730 days.
But analysts warned that the vague nature of the agreement could in fact mean, even if the accord goes ahead, the number of refugees finally resettled may be small and the process further delayed. That would perpetuate an ongoing human rights crisis that has seen Australia face stark international criticism.
“We have so little information on its nature anyway, that it could well permit the US to refuse very many of the people it has notionally agreed to accept,” Dr. Amy Maguire, senior lecturer with the Newcastle Law School, told Devex.
Keeping the deal
Analysts were caught off guard by the initial news of the Trump administration’s decision to move forward with the agreement and told Devex they were uncertain whether it would be delayed by an executive order suspending all refugee resettlement for 120 days.
“I was quite surprised it was going ahead, simply because we’d already seen statements from a number of Republican Congressman saying they were concerned about the deal’s secrecy and basically they didn’t think President Trump should go ahead with it,” Phil Orchard, research director for the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, told Devex. “At this point, I don’t know what to read into it.”
The initial motivation of the refugee swap was to dissuade migrants from undertaking risky journeys to both countries’ borders. For Australia, that meant arrivals traveling by boat, while the U.S. sought to deter Central American refugees. Neither side has offered details about how many refugees would be included in the agreement or the timeframe for their processing.
With Trump at the helm of any refugee deal, Australian observers believe the deal will sway firmly in the U.S.’s favor.
“Trump’s a great deal doer and there is obviously a deal there but we haven’t been told what it is,” John Hewson, former leader of the Liberal Party, told Devex.
Hewson speculated that for Trump, motivations may simply be confirmation of the original deal to stop the flow of Central American refugees. Or the U.S. president may have used the agreement to secure other concessions from Turnbull, he suggested.
“Trump has stuck to Obama’s deal, but I do ask myself if he did that deal because it was a deal or did he do it because he has been able to extract something else? Maybe not criticize my discriminatory stance on countries. There could have been some element of a deal there — who knows what it is as no side is prepared to talk about it. But you’ve got to be suspicious.”
Dutton’s office did not provide comment on discussion of the deal and why the U.S. was important in Australia’s refugee strategy.
Orchard suggested that the U.S. may also be seeking to firm up a military alliance. “We’ve seen some suggestions in the U.S. media that the U.S. military is potentially looking to expand their military presence in Australia, and the refugee deal could be equated with that,” Orchard said.
Hewson told Devex a deal with Australia would be an example of Trump the businessman in action. If the deal proceeded, international leaders should assume “everything is up for negotiation” with the new U.S. president, he said.
While this could open some opportunities, Trump’s attitude could also prove perilous for allies, he said. “We need to keep on our toes in all of these meetings and recognise that everything has to be negotiated and I would take absolutely nothing for granted. The past is irrelevant to Trump’s future.”
A band aid solution?
Australia has tried a number of “solutions” to process, resettle and deter arrivals by sea. Cambodia, East Timor, Malaysia, Nauru and Papua New Guinea have been partners in a range of refugee processing, swapping and resettlement deals with Australia since 2001.
Other governments, including New Zealand, have extended offers to Australia to take refugees. Though in the case of New Zealand, Australia declined as it may still encourage arrivals in the region.
Hewson speculates that the U.S. deal was “the only deal [Australia] could get done … And it’s still not done,” he told Devex. “The government needs a plan B and they don’t have one.”
Orchard told Devex that time is running out for the Australian government to settle refugees on Manus Island and Nauru. “This has been incredible damaging for Australia’s reputation, due to the number of years it has dragged on,” Orchard said. “The international community see our policies as abhorrent, they see our policies as too extreme, but they also see our policies as a significant and expensive response to what has been a very small problem,” Orchard said.
Most refugees enter Australia through airports, not boats, Orchard said. Recent statistics reveal only one-third of refugees in detention came by sea, according the the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. But air arrivals receive less attention as they tend to be wealthier and arrive in small groups.
Despite the costs, Hewson believes Australia will maintain its refugee policy. “If you attempt to come here by boat the boat will be turned around or you’ll end up on Manus or Nauru. Right now the focus is on turning boats around and they are willing to ensure that happens.”
Lives being traded
With the deal still in doubt, there is no guarantee that even a successful agreement will bring a happy ending for refugees on Manus Island and Nauru. Despite already being found to be legitimate refugees, if the agreement proceeds, individuals will be further vetted by the U.S. to determine if they can be resettled. This process can take up to two years with no guarantee of admission at the end.
“If some of the refugees are rejected by Washington, their futures are even more uncertain than they currently are,” Maguire said. The Papua New Guinea Supreme Court decision means the Manus Island detention center cannot remain open indefinitely, and Australia needs to provide another option. A deal with Papua New Guinea could allow those granted refugee status to be released into the local community, where analysts expect they would struggle to integrate.
Hewson said refugees should have been given a process and timeframe up front to protect their human rights.
For now, refugee advocates may need to wait until the conclusion of Trump’s 120 day ban on refugees for more clarity or for a Twitter update. Refugees will wait even longer for answers about their fate.
No comments:
Post a Comment