The Australian Coalitions asylum seeker policy may break international law

The first group of irregular maritime arrivals arrived at the regional processing centre in Manus Island, PNG today. The 19 people, comprising families from Sri Lanka and Iran, departed Christmas Island late yesterday. Transfers to Manus Island and Nauru will continue in coming weeks and months.
(Source: WikiCommons | Photo credit: DIAC Images)

Coinciding with a United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) report, which condemns the conditions that detainees suffer on Manus Island, the Australian Coalition has announced that if they win the next election, they will reintroduce policy of ‘turning back the boats.’ But this policy has been viewed by both the UNHCR and legal experts as breaking international law and obligations as a contracted state to the refugee convention.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison has announced that the Coalition, if elected, they will instruct the Australian Navy to force suspected asylum seeker boats to return to Sri Lankan waters before they can enter Australian territorial waters. He also mentioned that if elected, Australia would help bolster the Sri Lankan Navy, so they can prevent boats leaving in the first place.

On top of this announcement fromthe opposition, the UNHCR has published a report outlining criticism against the poor conditions that asylum seeker detainees suffer on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. UNHCR's regional representative, Richard Towle and Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who visited the island detention centre last week have said that women and Children have to stay in the same facilities as single men in temporary housing, under hot and humid weather.

I think that if asylum seekers are that despite to risk their lives coming by boat, we in Australia, should as a first world country at least offer better conditions and facilities for asylum seekers. I do agree that we need to detain people arriving illegally for processing purposes, but surly we are humane enough to provide more then just tents and a few tarps.

On the policy announcement by the Opposition, I think that this policy is flawed both morally and politically. As Australia has a good record in providing overseas humanitarian assistants and promoting the protection of human rights, we have an obligation to continue this effort in the future, but bring back past failed policies would ruin the image of a good global citizen that thousands of Australian’s have worked hard to achieve.      

Who has Sovereign Rights over the Falkland Islands?

The Falkland Islands, a self-governing British Overseas Territory just off the coast of Argentina does not get a mention much in geopolitics, but this small island with more sheep then people has been a contested piece of land for almost 300 years. 

Ever since Britain colonised the uninhabited islands in the early 19 century, Argentina has claimed sovereign rights over the Falklands and has even gone to war over this fact.

Back in 1982 Argentinean forces invaded the islands and occupied them for 74 days until a British task force reclaimed the Falklands with over 200 British and 700 Argentinean soldiers killed.

For many years after the war, relations between Britain and Argentina were strained with either nation willing to discuss the issue over the islands. But since the early 1990’s relations have improved, although there has been no formal negotiation over the future of the Falklands.

The problem with solving the sovereignty issue of the Falklands, is the reality that most of the 2563 inhabitants have British ancestry and view themselves as firstly Falkland Islanders and secondly British. The Argentineans on the other hand argue that the islands are historically and geographically part of their territory and should be given back. The British government has clearly stated that as the majority of the Falklands population wants to stay as part of Britain, they will not abandon the islands. The issue is further complicated with oil and gas reserves been found around the islands, which the British would be keen to keep hold of.

In the last few days the relationship between the two nations has been further strained, with the Argentinean Foreign minister HectorTimerman rejecting his British counterpart William Hague’s invitation tomeet Falkland Islandgovernment representatives in London next week. This snub, along with renewed calls from Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for Britain to agree with the 1965 United Nations Resolution, calling for a negotiated solution to the dispute, has increased tensions over the last few years.

I think that the best way to solve the issue of the future of the Falkland Islands is not on bringing up the past, but for all parties involved including the elected Falkland Islands government to begin formal discussions, leading to a long term agreement. From what a know of the situation, majority of the Inhabitants on the Falklands want to remain as part of Britain, and in March this year they will have the chance to vote in a referendum on if they will remain a British Overseas Territory or not. What ever is decided by the people, both Britain and Argentina should respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. 

The Australian federal election has been called

Image source: Morgue File, photo by jppi

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has publicly announced that the Australian Federal election will take place on the 14th September 2013. This gives the Australian voters over seven months to decide which way they will vote and allow other political parties time to work on policies to persuade the public.

Gillard and her Labor government are well behind opposition leader Tony Abbot and his Liberal party in the polls; Gillard’s first priority would be to try to gain increased voters approval.

We may think that announcing a date for an federal election over seven months before, to be unusual in Australian politics, but Gillard’s tactics are well advised, and as the federal treasurer Wayne Swan has stated, that now we have a date set, speculation taking over debate can not be an excuse for Tony Abbot or any others not to have policies or costing in place by the election.

I think that Gillard and the Labor party will be challenged to win the next election and retain government. Over the last few years, issues of trust in Gillard’s government have made her a target for oppositions attacks that have allowed the Liberal Party to gain popularity by most of the voters.

Although the Liberal parties have performed better in the polls in the last few years, Tony Abbot is not a popular chose for Prime Minister, with most of the public liking Julia Gillard. From this analysis, the Liberal parties are likely to win the popular vote to be the next government, but Abbot would be seen as the man to win the election, because many voters seem to agree with his principles on asylum seekers and climate change, but he may not last a full term.

I think that Abbot needs more than just outdated policies and bring up the ‘trust issue’ every time he attacks Gillard and the government, instead draw up sound policy that will drive Australia and its people into the future.

John Kerry: The next U.S Secretary of State

Kerry campaigning in St. Louis, MO for President 2004 (Image source: WikiCommons, photo by Thomas True)

Senator John F. Kerry has been approved by theUnited States (US) senate as the next Secretary of State, with 94 voting yes and 3 Republicans rejecting Kerry’s new position.

John Kerry was the 2004 Democrat candidate for the Presidential election, which George Bush won a second term. Kerry has many years of experience in foreign relations and has become known as an expert in the field. He was an envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan in President Obama’s first term. On his many trips to the region he gave many blunt messagers to leaders in Afghanistan that the political situation needs to improve. Also for the past four years he has been the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Kerry takes over from Hilary Clinton who has been in this role since yearly 2009. Clinton had, over the last few years improved the international reputation and image of the U.S., working closely with Obama on renewing some broken relationships with many nations and leaders around the world.

Although some of the major tasks assigned to Clinton and the State Department, such as bring peace to the Middle East have not been fully achieved, Clinton and her staff have given renewed emphasis that peace in the Middle East can be accomplished if the leaders involved in the conflict and the international community cooperate together.

John Kerry has indicated that he will carry on Clinton’s good work in the Middle East and improve relations with other nations.

I anticipate that John Kerry will carry out his role in helping bringing peace to the Middle East including Syria and emphasize a need to develop better cooperation between nations for a brighter future for the next generation.

Will Britain be Part of the European Union in 2017?

British Prime Minister David Cameron in a speech last week disused his conservative party plans for the future of Britain’s membership in the European Union (EU).

He has told the British voters, and put other European countries on notice that if his government is elected for a second term, he will ask the British people to decide in a referendum by 2017 if Britain should stay in the EU or leave.

This decision by Cameron comes after disagreement on reforms being discussed by member states on how to solve the Euro crises and improve the workings of the EU system.

After much criticism from both the Labor party and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who opposes any such referendum on the issue, Cameron argued that the British people should be given the change to decided once and for all, if they the people should agree to the European settlement, which they had not much say on, or should Britain abandon the relationship with Europe.

I have to agree with Nick Clegg who said that putting a referendum to the people would cause "years of uncertainty" and would not be in the national interest. Britain would be better off sticking with the EU during these tough times and show the rest of Europe that they will not abandon them. In the long run, Europe will probably come out stronger after the Euro crises as they have done in the past.

Also, staying a member of the EU will benefit Britain in the future because in economic or political crises, Britain may need the help of other European countries, who would turn their backs if snubbed by Britain at a time of renewed cooperation.

I hope that for Britain’s sake that either Cameron comes to his sensors or the people vote to stay in the EU.             

How can the International Community Support Mali?

On the 11thJanuary this year French troops where sent to intervene in Mali, where the ragtag Malian forces have been fighting Islamist rebels who have taken control of much of the north of the country.

The Mali government under the interim President Dioncounda Traore, who came to power after a military coup in early 2012 to replace former President Amadou Toumani Toure, have been in a losing battle with a well equipped Islamist rebel groups. The Islamists have links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Over the last few months the Malian army have prevented the Islamists from gaining further ground in the south of the country, but with division in both the army and government, rebel forces have moved within a couple of hundred kilometers from the capital Bamako.

This sudden advance by Islamist forces alarmed the international community, especially ex-colonial power French who are worried that Mali would become a terrorist safe haven in the middle of North Africa, if the Islamist takes control of the capital.

French sent an initial force of about 800 troops, with afurther 2000 to be sent over the next few weeks. Also some African nations have forwarded the plans to send a contingent of about 3000-4000 troops to Mali as part of a United Nations approved mission. On top of French forces, the US and other European nations have offered logistical support.

Over the last week since French and the rest of the international community has actively intervened in Mali on the request of the Mali governemt, there has been much discussion on how to deal with the problems in Mali and more respectively North Africa where there is a growing spread of Islamist groups linked to terrorist activities.

The western nations in Europe and the US do not have the stomach, even man power due to conflict in Afghanistan to commit large amount of resources to combat Islamist forces in Mali and North Africa.

The plan by the international community is indicating that they will help train the Malian army and the other African forces due to arrive as part of a UN mission, and offer logistical support. Although this strategy applies to the understanding that African nations have to rely on themselves to combat issues of weak government and Islamist activities in the region, but history tells us that relying on African nations to deal  with the many issues in Africa with only limited support from the international community will not solve the long term problems.

On the other hand European powers have in the past made Africa as it is today, but I think that if Africa, especially North African nations are to develop free from weak governments and civil war, western countries may need to take a larger role in actively supporting a better future for the people of Africa, including sending more then just a hand full of advisers and military trainers.    

Egypt’s revolution for democracy seems to be sliding back to a Military dictatorship

Over the last few weeks ten of thousands of Egyptians and opposition parties have been protesting against former Brotherhood member and now President Mohammed Morsi, who on November 22, announced a decree giving himself sweeping powers, including oversight over the judiciary. All these powers were written into a new constitution, which will be put to a referendum on the 15^th December. Although, since last Sunday, the President has annulled some of the sweeping powers including the oversight over the judiciary, but many still stand.

Furthermore, the Army has been given increased authority toarrest protesters and to protect state institutions, meaning that police powers have further decreased with the military taking over much of the security in Cairo.

In my opinion it seems that Egypt may slide back to military rule because of the new authority for the military to arrest civilians. This may further occur if the constitutional referendum goes a head on the 15^th of December, where the new constitution will likely gain a majority supporting the document including the new powers for the President. If this does happen as predicted, the opposition will probably step up its protests against the President Morsi and his ruling Freedom and Justice Party, which could bring further violent divisions between the Islamic Brotherhood supporters and the more moderate sections of society. With increased violence on the streets and political divisions could force the military to step in once more to solve the issue and retake control of Egypt.

For the hundreds of Egyptians killed in the 2011 revolution and the people still fighting for democracy, I hope that a solution to the crises can be found and Egypt can rebuild after decades of dictatorship.