Elaine Pearson. Cambodia: A poor choice for Australia’s refugee resettlement

“It’s not about whether they are poor, it’s about whether they can be safe,” Australia’s Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said in defence of Australia’s plan to resettle refugees currently housed on Nauru to Cambodia. It appears Cambodia and Australia are in the final stages of signing such an agreement.

But is Cambodia a safe place for refugees?

Not if you’re from China. In 2009, under pressure from China, Cambodia forcibly deported 20 ethnic Uighurs back to China. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had already issued “persons of concern” letters to the Uighurs—most had fled China for Cambodia after July 2009 protests in Urumqi that the Chinese authorities brutally supressed. We know some of those returned to China have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Not if you’re from Vietnam. Human Rights Watch has long reported on the forced return of Khmer Krom activist monks straight into the hands of Vietnamese security services. Cambodian authorities have used the threat of forced return to Vietnam to stamp out any activist activities, preventing monks from forming, joining or meeting with local Khmer Krom groups, distributing bulletins, or participating in protests.

Cambodia is not particularly safe if you’re Cambodian. Freedom of expression, assembly and association are under regular attack, while corruption is rampant. Let’s hope no resettled refugee end up in Cambodia’s courts, where matters are decided by bribes and political influence, not law and facts. Decades of authoritarian rule under Prime Minister Hun Sen have empowered Cambodian security forces to commit abuses such as killings, torture, and arbitrary detention with impunity. Those especially vulnerable include government critics, activists, journalists, and those living on the margins.

Human Rights Watch has documented the arbitrary arrest, detention and mistreatment of “undesirables” housed in squalid detention centres run by the Ministry of Social Welfare, where beatings and rapes by guards continue with impunity. Where will the refugees Australia sends away be housed, and which Cambodian ministry will be responsible for their care and integration? What freedoms will these asylum seekers have to live where they please and get education or find jobs?  How long before the authorities might consider them “undesirables” as well?

These are among a long list of questions that the Australian government has avoided, stonewalling on the specifics of what the agreement will entail.

Another key question is what has the Australian government offered Cambodia in return for agreeing to resettle refugees? Cambodian officials deny being offered money, though it is hard to believe there will be no economic benefit to Cambodia.

When Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison made recent visits to Cambodia, they failed to speak publicly about the serious human rights concerns there. Hun Sen, in power for 28 years, has not of late had to worry that Australia would be a regional critic of his series of flawed elections and a coup and a long history of human rights abuses.

Australia sold out human rights in Sri Lanka, appeasing the Rajapaksa regime and protecting it from international criticism rather than trying to protect Sri Lankans from abuses by their government. Ostensibly, this was in order to “stop the boats” of Sri Lankans coming to Australia, and ensure Sri Lanka’s cooperation in sending Sri Lankans back home.

Australia should not make the same shameful mistake with Cambodia. Hun Sen may have maintained a grip on power for decades, but opposition is growing. Australia should not discount the voice of the opposition which has strongly condemned using Cambodia for Australia’s refugees.

Cambodia is one of the few Asian countries that is a party to the Refugee Convention. Yet it has long made a mockery of its refugee commitments.  Australia should help Cambodia become a rights-respecting, safe and stable place — but the best way is by holding the government to account for its abuses while providing capacity-building assistance.

Australia needs to stop setting a bad model for the region by shirking its obligations. What incentive is there for countries in the region to ratify the Refugee Convention, when they see Australia and Cambodia render signatures meaningless through their actions? Australia’s policy of sending asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea and Nauru for months on end with no long-term prospects has been bad enough. When detainees are considering “voluntary returns” to war-torn Syria, then we know how limited their options are.

Australia needs to end the suffering and indecision on Manus and Nauru, but not by sending people to Cambodia. Rather, it should do what’s fair and right by abiding by the long-standing principle that refugees are deserving of a durable solution. Australia should take the responsibility to examine asylum seekers’ claims, return those found not to be in need of protection, and integrate refugees who cannot return to their home countries.

Australia, not Cambodia, has the capacity to restore their rights and enable them to become productive and self-sustaining contributors to their host country.

Elaine Pearson is Australia Director at Human Rights Watch. 

print

This entry was posted in Human Rights, International Affairs, Refugees, Immigration and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Elaine Pearson. Cambodia: A poor choice for Australia’s refugee resettlement

  1. Michael Faulkner says:

    Thank you for this article Elaine Pearson.

    In recent years, Australia has cynically engaged in systematic and serial flouting of UN human rights conventions, particularly in relation to refugees.

    Yet we remain a signatory to these internationally agreed standards, such as the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

    At a deep cultural level, the present ‘war against refugees ‘ transmutes from the cultural familiarity of Australia as a preparedness to engage in wars against foreigners, a propensity to do so for 100 years now. Thus, very specifically, the off-shore ware-housing of refugees over the past decade or so,can be seen as a logical extension of this widely accepted national world-view. This has now become our national neurosis.

    What is needed is the construction and the re-construction of an alternative national narrative. The wider populace needs more knowledge and education on the contribution refugees have made to this country across the sweep of history. The openness and the success of some contemporary regional communities across the country, in accepting, supporting and integrating refugee groups needs much greater publicity. The rich cultural capital such successes generate need to be recognised. The work of small but effective agencies such as Melbourne’s Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and the Victorian Foundation for the Survivors of Trauma and Torture need greater documenting in the mainstream media. Given that people movement is only likely to increase globally in coming decades, where is the Chair of Asylum Seeker Studies in one or more of our leading universities?.

    Finally, while international criticism of Australia’s record of human rights abuse with respect to refugees now equals our historical treatment of indigenous people, is ‘ water off a duck’s back’ , as far as the mainstream media is concerned, these apparently separate themes are indeed, inter-related.

    Continuing international attention should continue to be brought to bear with respect to the policy and the actions of this government. Impossible though it seems at times, even this government is capable of being embarrassed internationally.

Comments are closed.