Deal to deport Afghan asylum-seekers finalised

It was reported in last week’s online edition of The Australian newspaper that Australia and Afghanistan have finalised an agreement for the return of failed Afghan asylum-seekers.  The article goes on to cite a source familiar with the negotiations who states that a memorandum of understanding outlining the deportation process could be signed as early as next week, paving the way for literally hundreds of failed asylum-seekers to be returned to Kabul in 2011.

Of course it is unrealistic to believe that all individuals applying for humanitarian visas will qualify to receive protection in Australia.  There will always be a percentage of applicants whose protection claims do not satisfy the minimum requirements of the 1951 Refugee Convention.  For these individuals there needs to be a clearly defined deportation process that is conducted in a fair and humane fashion.  However, beyond the simple establishment of guidelines governing this process lies bigger questions – chiefly the motivation of the Australian government in reaching this agreement and the situation they are rushing to return Afghan nationals to.

Since the influx of boat arrivals commencing in  late-2008 4342 Afghans have arrived onshore, close to half of the 9252 arriving in total. Over the course the past year the primary acceptance rate of Afghan asylum-seekers has dropped from somewhere in the vicinity of 95 percent to around 50 percent.  This has left large numbers of people languishing in detention for extended periods of time as they go through the appeals process to try to remain in Australia.  If we are to accept that this increased rejection rate is the result of an improved security and not politically motivated (which I don’t and neither does the UNHCR) then we are left with a sizeable population of Afghans awaiting deportation.

Despite the government’s talk of ‘the improved security situation’ as the primary motivator for the surge in refusals the fact is that Afghanistan remains an extremely dangerous place.  Insurgent groups have continued to increase in size and strength and violence is being increasingly directed towards civilians.  This year civilian causalities caused by anti-government elements rose 53 percent compared to 2009.  Most disturbingly, between May and June this year insurgents groups were assassinating and executing 18 civilians each week.  This is the ‘improved security situation’ civilian non-combatants are being returned to.  That vast swathes of the nation are either under insurgent control or areas of active conflict makes Kabul the only suitable location for the return of deported individuals.

Even in Kabul there is a recognition that the Afghan government remains weak and ineffectual, severely hampered by endemic corruption at all levels.  That the Afghan government is unwilling or unable to protect and provide these returnees means that Australia will provide a comprehensive reintegration package to help people resettle.  These packages will consist of in-kind support such as vocational training, assistance in securing employment and small business start-up funding.  While in theory this policy sounds positive, in practice in can have grave deleterious consequences.  In a poor country where lawlessness runs rampant, these returnees may find themselves the target of insurgents or criminal elements, keen to alleviate them of their newfound prosperity.  This was exactly what happened the last time such return packages were trialled under the Howard government in the early-2000s.

At the crux of this agreement is the government’s desire to reduce the pressure they find themselves under as a result of their mishandling of the asylum-seeker issue.  Labor frontbencher Mark Dreyfus stated that this arrangement will help the government more easily deal with irregular maritime arrivals.  And while it will undoubtedly remove some people from an overcrowded immigration detention system, it is a short-sighted and blinkered way of thinking.  This proposal provides no disincentive effect for people to seek asylum within our borders.  Ideally, all parties involved in this debate want to drastically reduce the number of people seeking asylum in Australia, albeit for wildly differing reasons.    As much as the government and some sections of society believe a tough border policy will achieve this, the only way to reliably do so is through a long-term, concerted effort to bring stability to Afghanistan.  All this agreement will achieve is to create more internally displaced people and paint a target on the back of returnees.  If we are serious about tackling this issue we have to shed our growing insularity.  Until we begin to do so, we cannot shirk our moral and legal responsibility to help those people who are brought to our shores by our ignorance of their plight at home.