This is taken from a message I received on the subject, several days ago. I don't know if the situation has been resolved yet, and it isn't making a blip on the news services around here.

If anyone has an update, I'd be very glad to hear it.

******

"Apparently, there was a leaky rust-bucket heading from Indonesia to Australia, stuffed with over 400 refugees, most of them fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq.

When the thing started sinking, an Australian Coast-Guard plane spotted their SOS and radioed a
Norwegian cargo-ship, the Tampa, and asked them to supply assistance.

The Tampa went in and plucked the people out of the water. So here they were, 400+ dripping,
frightened refugees who had basically just traded everything but the clothes on their backs for passage into Australia.

The captain was preparing to take them to Indonesia, but the refugees basically said: "No! If we get stuck there, we'll never get out - we've got nothing left to buy passage with. Take us to Australia - otherwise, people are going to start diving back in the water!"

So the Tampa captain agreed, and headed for Christmas Island, the closest Australian territory.

The Australian Government (who is at present in the throes of criticism by every church group,
Amnesty International, The Red Cross, the United Nations and several Senate inquiries into the poor
treatment of refugees) sent a message to the Norwegian government and said: "They're not welcome in Australia, tell your captain to turn his ship around."

Unfortunately, Indonesia said essentially the same thing.

The Norwegian government relayed this to the Tampa captain, who by this stage was close to Christmas Island, who essentially responded with: 'I don't care. There are 438 men, women and children on the deck of my ship. Many of the women are pregnant. Many of the people are ill. I'm declaring a state of distress and coming into Christmas Island'.

So he did, dropping anchor about 3 km off-shore (Christmas Island has no port to handle a container ship), within Australian Territorial waters.

So what does Australia do? Does it grit its teeth and say: "Damn! We didn't want this - but there are 400+ people in need of help"?

No. It says: "Get out of our waters" and sends in a platoon of SAS troops to back it up. So now the ship is occupied by Australian soldiers, the 438 refugees (who are fleeing totalitarian police-states) are surrounded by soldiers with assault rifles, the Captain of the Tampa is still refusing to budge.

Indonesia refuses to take the refugees.
Australia is refusing to take the refugees.
The captain (who is the real meat-in-the-sandwich here) is the only person actually trying to do the right thing - he is saying he doesn't give a rat's-arse whose responsibility it is; he's got hundreds of people, many of them ill, aboard his ship, and is being told he's going to be forced back into international waters.

Many Australian maritime law experts have already decried the government's action as in breach of maritime law.

The Norwegian government has said if Australia forces the ship out into international waters it will(probably successfully, it seems) have Australia hauled before the World Shipping Organisation on charges of piracy!

The Australian government was in parliamentary session until 2am this morning, debating an emergency piece of legislation to make it legal for Australia to take this direct action - legislation which was to have been retrospective back to 9am the previous morning, before the troops had stormed the ship."

******

quote:

---

War of words heats up in refugee row
September 4, 2001 Posted: 10:20 AM EDT (1420 GMT)

Prime Minister John Howard's public approval rating has soared

CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- Indonesia has accused Australia of using its northern neighbour as a scapegoat in the wrangle over the plight of hundreds of Afghan illegal immigrants.

Indonesian Defense Minister Matori Abdul Djalil reacted angrily to Australian claims Indonesia was responsible for the crisis being drawn out, saying Australian Prime Minister John Howard was pandering to populist opinion in the lead-up to a federal election.

The tough stance adopted by Australian Prime Minister John Howard on would-be asylum-seekers has paid big political dividends ahead of national elections tipped for later this year.

Howard's refusal to allow a boatload of 433 asylum-seekers -- rescued by the Norwegian cargo ship Tampa nine days ago -- to land on Australian shores has won overwhelming public support and provided a handy fillip for his ruling coalition government.

"Their diplomacy failed and (they held) Indonesia responsible. In fact, we aren't the one who is responsible," Matori told the reporters Tuesday.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda said that the issue was "an international problem", adding that he prefered to talk in private.

"What we don't like is to have a public debate," the minister said in an Australian televison interview.

Opinion polling soars
The Australian government has insisted that the asylum-seekers -- believed to be primarily of Afghan origin -- be transferred to other Pacific nations to have their refugee status assessed. This transfer process is now underway.

An ACNielsen poll held at the weekend found 77 per cent agreed with the Australian government's decision to refuse the asylum seekers entry and 74 percent approved of Howard's handling of the stand-off.

That poll showed Howard's approval rating had jumped 11 points to 57 per cent, his highest since December 1999.

A national election held now would be a close run thing with the coalition and the main opposition, the Australian Labor Party, running neck and neck in the popularity stakes.

The polls reflect a sharp turnaround in sentiment for the Howard government which six months ago was languishing in public sentiment.

Dissatisfaction with a new tax system, higher prices for petrol and the deregulation of rural industries were weighing heavily on the coalition's chances of re-election.

However, a series of policy backdowns and the illegal immigrants issue has restored the government's fortunes.

People smuggling arrests
While Christmas Island’s refugee standoff has ended, a new ordeal is just beginning for four Indonesian crewmen left behind.

They now face up to 20 years in an Australian jail and fines of up to US$ 116,000 for attempting to smuggle hundreds of asylum seekers into Australia aboard the KM Palapa.

Aged between 17 and 35, the crewmen nodded silently as they heard the charges at Christmas Island’s court.

The judge formally rejected bail, opting to transfer the case to Perth where the defendants would be provided with support groups and legal counsel.

Generous refugee quota
Chairman of the Community Relations Commission in New South Wales Stepan Kerkyasharian told CNN on Tuesday that public support for the government's stance was not a repudiation of Australia's multicultural society and immigration policies.

"These polls simply reflect support for the government's position that it has to protect the integrity of its borders and conduct an orderly immigration policy," he said.

Australia has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent the asylum-seekers landing on its shores "It is no way a rejection of the multicultural, multi-faith society of Australia."

Kerkyasharian said the latest illegal immigrants issue and public support for the tough stance was unlikely to affect Australian policies on immigration and refugee policies down the track.

"Immigration rules are more to do with economic realities rather than the outcome of this issue," he said.

Australia has one of the most multi-cultural societies in the world having taken in almost 5.7 million immigrants since 1945. About one-quarter of Australia's 19 million population were born overseas.

The country also has, according to the government, the second most generous refugee quota per capita in the world.

It is against this backdrop that Australians have bristled against international criticism of the Howard Government's handling of the Tampa situation and accusations of inhumane treatment of asylum-seekers.

Such attacks have most likely served to bolster support for Howard who has been seen to stand up strongly for Australia's right to defend its borders.

'Unnecessarily divisive'
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja had earlier described the prime minister's solution to the Tampa issue as "another embarrassment for Australia and a waste of taxpayer's money''.

"The fact that the Australian government is paying to shift around 300 people who are already in Australia all the way to Nauru, just to assess their claims for asylum, shows what absurd lengths the prime minister is prepared to go to," she said.

Greens Senator Dr Bob Brown said threats would not change his view.

"I think the specter that has been fostered of an imminent invasion of Australia, which is totally spurious, has been really damaging to a proper debate," Brown told Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on Tuesday.

"It has certainly damaged Australia's image and I think it has been unnecessarily divisive within the country."

The potential for further divisiveness remains however, with a Federal Court still to decide on whether the asylum-seekers should actually be brough to Australia to have their refugee status determined.

A decision on the case, brought by the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, will be made Wednesday or Thursday.

---

Frankly, the only difference between this and and the U.S.'s border "situation" with Mexico is that ours is a land border, and Australia's border is water. This also doesn't sound a whole lot different from US policy towards Cuban refugees (unless they're baseball players), when we ship 'em to Guntamano.

Speaking of which, if the opposition party is the labor party, doesn't that mean that a *gasp!* right-wing conservative is the one calling the shots here, and sending in that warship? Proof again the Conservatives running a government are a bad thing.

I guess the issue here is ... were they trying to enter Australia illegally? I mean, no offense, but if the INS caught four hundred Mexicans (many ill, many pregnant), they might give some of them medical care, but they'd kick them all out of the country ASAP (except for any mothers who may have given birth by that point, of course, their children being automatic U.S. citizens).

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

While I agree sending commandos and warships is not the solution, in the same time, I also supported the Prime Minister's decision not to grant safe passage to these refugees.

Also, I think countries from all over the world should stop and think before they start to question Australia's policies, because from what I understand, most "industrialized" countries has done the same thing when it come to refugees from the past to the present.

And I do think Australia is right for pointing out that Indonesia is at fault for this perticular incident. It is the job of the Australian government to question where the SHIP comes from, not to question where the REFUGEES comes from, as far as I'm concern, that job rest on the shoulder of the Indonesian government.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]

"Only"? International naval treaties don't apply to land borders. That's a frikin' big difference.

I guess the issue here is ... were they trying to enter Australia illegally?

quote:

---

Under Australian law, they are not "illegal immigrants". The Howard government has been pushing that bit of disinformation quite successfully over the last couple of years in an attempt to demonise those who arrive seeking refugee status.

Under Australian law, there is absolutely nothing illegal about arriving on Australian shores, without a shred of documentation, and asking for asylum.

If you have your claim rejected (which is a process involving investigation and arbitration - not simply an off-hand dismissal) and refuse to leave, then you can be rightly labelled an "illegal". Until that happens, however, under our own law, your are not doing anything illegal.

This is why Howard et al tried to push thru the retroactive legislation earlier this week; Howard knew he was on very shaky legal ground in sending troops to intercept the Tampa, because the people aboard had requested asylum. Therefore, under both Australian and International law, we were obliged to provide succor and process their applications.

I don't think Australia should simply throw open the gates and let everyone just walk in. I do however, think that if anyone is desperate enough to sell everything they own for a spot on a leaking fishing boat, risk their lives on it, hitting out for a "great unknown", we should at least give them a chance to prove their validity.

---

In other words, you're not an illegal there intil your request for asylum has been researched, processed, evaluated and rejected. I very much doubt that their government has had the time to do that.

Jeffk: Just because somebody has "Labor" in their name, doesn't mean they're leftist (or even pro-labor), just as not all parties with "Socialist" in them are Socialists (think 'National Socialists'), and not all organizations with "People's" in them are pro or of or for the people.

quote:

---

The Afghans should solve their own problems before running into someone elses country like a thief in the night.

---