|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
2 Kiwis visit Nauru - the first journos in 12 months |
Current rating: 0 |
by KIM RUSCOE
(No verified email address) |
03 Jan 2004
|
|
We felt positive that Mr Harris would allow us to tour the camp but were shocked when he refused to shake my hand, called us yahoos and told us in no uncertain terms that we were not welcome on the island. Fearing arrest, we went to one of two local Internet cafes where I transcribed my shorthand notes and e-mailed them to myself. |
FROM NEW ZEALAND'S DOMINION POST
All nerves and instant noodles
03 January 2004
By KIM RUSCOE
EXCLUSIVE
On Nauru to investigate a hunger strike by asylum seekers, Dominion
Post journalist Kim Ruscoe and photographer Andrew Gorrie were told
to "get on the next plane out of here" by Nauruan President Rene
Harris.
"Journalists are not allowed on the island," he growled at us during
an audience at Parliament House on New Year's Eve.
"How did you get in here? I suggest you get yourselves on the next
plane out of here."
We had intended gaining entry into Nauru by taking advantage of a
loophole that allowed New Zealanders travelling via Fiji to enter the
country without a visa.
We discovered after our arrival that new laws on December 8 require
Kiwis to obtain a visitor's visa from the Australian Government,
which almost always turned them down.
Despite the law change, we were not asked for visas by immigration
officials at Fiji, where we boarded our Air Nauru flight, or on
landing in Nauru.
We began to suspect we might not be able to get into the country when
the flight attendant's eyes bulged on hearing our destination was
Nauru.
Fearing that we could be put back on the plane at any time, we hid in
our hotel room till it left Nauru for its final destination,
Brisbane.
As soon as we heard the plane take off, we scuttled downstairs and
went in search of a friendly local who would hire us a car for a
couple of days. A Pakistani school teacher from the local college
agreed to let us have his beat-up bomb for A$140 (NZ$160).
Of course, the petrol tank was empty but we persuaded our new-found
friend to drive to a petrol station and queue for fuel, which we paid
for.
He also sold us his phone card. We had been unable to find one in any
of the stores and I needed to phone our contact in Australia for
instructions on where a prearranged clandestine meeting with asylum
seekers was to take place and to be given a code name, Arbi Laila
–
Afghanistan for mother of Laila.
Unfortunately, when we asked directions to our meeting place we were
sent to the wrong spot and missed the asylum seekers.
After a frantic phone call to our Australian contact, we were told to
go to the security gates at Topside Camp and make ourselves visible
to the refugees.
Bearing gifts for the children and posing as visitors from Wellington
who had been asked to check on the welfare of certain detainees, we
asked the Australian guards if some could be brought to the gates to
talk to us – a common but unofficial practice.
Confused by our presence, they sent us to see camp chief Cy Winter at
a nearby hotel. He almost bought our story but, the more we talked,
he became suspicious that we were lawyers, refugee supporters or
media.
"How did you get in here?" he asked. "No one has got in here since a
BBC reporter about a year ago."
Other media, including a German television crew, who had turned up
had been herded straight back on to the plane.
We explained we were Kiwis, did not need a visa and that we were
visiting friends for a couple of days. "But even two New Zealand
dignitaries who wanted to come here and visit the refugees couldn't
get in," he said.
If we were media, he warned, the Nauruan Government would ensure we
did not leave the island with the information and photos we had come
to gather. He sent us packing and told us if we wanted to visit the
camp we would have to get permission from President Harris the next
day.
However, Mr Harris had collapsed with a stroke during a meeting
earlier in the day and had been taken to hospital.
The following morning we went in search of an acting president,
whoever that might be. The minister concerned had not arrived at work
by midday but we did see him early afternoon.
He told us Mr Harris "was fine" and would be arriving soon to attend
a caucus meeting, then a parliamentary sitting, and we could see him
then.
We felt positive that Mr Harris would allow us to tour the camp but
were shocked when he refused to shake my hand, called us yahoos and
told us in no uncertain terms that we were not welcome on the island.
Fearing arrest, we went to one of two local Internet cafes where I
transcribed my shorthand notes and e-mailed them to myself.
While in the cafe, we contacted a detainee who had been escorted
there by camp guards. He agreed to tell us his story and have his
photos taken.
We slipped out of the cafe to a disused building. Sitting cross-
legged on the ground, 18-year-old Ali Madad Razai's head and eyes
constantly flicked around, nervous not that he would be caught but
that he would be stopped from telling us his harrowing story.
We slipped a small digital camera to a detainee and arranged for it
to be smuggled out late that night.
We raced back to the hotel room, transcribed the tapes into shorthand
then went back to the cafe and typed up the notes, which I once again
e-mailed to myself. That night, we burned all my notes, wiped the
tape and hid the digital camera card in the lining of my suitcase.
Back at the hotel, we ate yet another pottle of instant noodles –
not
prepared to trust that the Chinese takeaways available did not
contain dog or cat meat. With no cooking facilities, instant noodles,
Pringles chips and a packet of wine biscuits were our only food.
We then waited nervously to keep a late night rendezvous. We pulled
up at the deserted meeting place, switched off the lights and waited
till we heard a whistle from the darkness.
Getting out of the car, I picked my way to where I thought the sound
had come from but saw nothing. I waited till another whistle came and
followed the sound till I saw a flashlight flick on and off. Crouched
in the bushes was a group of detainees eager to tell their stories.
They bundled into the back of the car and we sped off to a little
used area of beach.
As residents celebrated New Year, the detainees quietly told their
stories as we sat on the sand.
They told of life in the camp, the fighting in Afghanistan that had
killed many of their relatives, children being taught to use guns as
a means of protection and their dreams for a free life.
THEY believe they are being exploited by the Nauruans – the
island
would be bankrupt without the money the Australian Government pays to
house the detainees.
When it was time to go, a kind of sadness filled the air. The
detainees shuffled their feet unwilling to leave the little bit of
freedom that had come their way.
The following morning it was time for us to go to the airport and
face the baggage search we had been warned of. Having checked in our
bags, we stood nervously smoking under the terminal veranda.
Next to us stood an engineer from an Australian-owned Lear jet parked
beside the runway.
The jet had been chartered by the president to deliver a Nauruan
minister home after a visit to Australia the previous day, but the
crew had been refused clearance to fly out and had been forced to
overnight on the island.
Mr Harris, who had returned to hospital, had ordered the plane
grounded till the following day.
The anticipated search and feared arrest never came, we passed
through customs without incident and after a long, stressful wait in
the departure lounge, we boarded the plane bound for Fiji. Clicking
our seat belts into place, Andrew snapped off a photo of my smiling
face as we anticipated our departure from what for us was a hell
hole.
All the passengers were seated, the flight crew had gone through the
emergency checks, we should have been on our way, but still we sat on
the tarmac, engines running.
The next minute a woman with a handheld radio boarded the plane,
approached our seats and demanded our tickets.
The smile dropped from my face, my stomach lurched, my heart beat
louder than a heavy metal band.
She tore the ticket slips from the folder that should have been
removed during check in, looked at us apologetically and said, "Thank
you, sorry about that." |
Comments
|
Low on money, food and water |
by KIM RUSCOE
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Jan 2004
|
Low on money, food and water
SATURDAY , 03 JANUARY 2004
By KIM RUSCOE in NAURU
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2773338a11,00.html
Once the world's richest country on a per-capita basis, the Republic
of Nauru is verging on financial ruin.
The island's one bank rarely has money, government workers go months
without pay, supermarket shelves are virtually empty, petrol pumps
lie idle much of the time, water is scarce and the power supply
unreliable.
On Tuesday I saw people queue for hours outside the bank to withdraw
the maximum allowable amount of A$100 (NZ$115). It was the first time
in months Nauruans had access to the money in their accounts and it
was after 10pm before the queues were cleared.
One man said he had not been paid by the Nauruan Phosphate Company
since March. If the refugees were to leave and Nauru no longer
received money from the Australian Government to house them, things
would be worse. "We're lucky they're here," he said.
Another local believed the island's government was investing the
people's money to generate income.
"I'm not happy about it, but we manage," he said. "I have chickens
and we go fishing with nets and my son goes diving."
The house he and his family live in has no running water. They rely
on rain water collected in a tank. When they run out, they can buy
imported water for $3 per 3000 gallons, but orders take up to four
months to arrive.
Very few petrol stations on Nauru had petrol. Where there was petrol,
cars queued for more than an hour to fill up. The shelves in the
island's biggest supermarket offered gardening supplies and
toiletries but little food. A few cans of asparagus spears, red
beans, pasta, rice, spices and sauces were all that was on sale.
Our hotel – one of two on Nauru – had no dining area. There was no
hot water in the rooms and a half-gallon drum of water and a bucket
placed in the shower were the only means of flushing the toilet.
The power went off frequently. When it did, there was not only no
alternative lighting but the water supplies dried up. The drum of
water had to be used for washing too.
International calls could be made only from public cardphones, but we
could not find any store that sold cards. We resorted to buying one
from a local teacher.
There is no public transport, no taxis and no car hire companies.
But then, they are mostly not needed because between the Nauruan and
Australian governments, most outsiders are kept just that – outside.
Visitors have to apply for visas from the Australian Government but
almost all are refused entry.
The Dominion Post |
|
'Taleban took my father' |
by KIM RUSCOE
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Jan 2004
|
'Taleban took my father'
03 January 2004
By KIM RUSCOE
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2773477a11,00.html
Two years ago the Taleban came to 16-year-old Ali Madad Razai's house
in the middle of the night and took his father and older brother.
They have not been seen or heard of since.
"My mother asked them so much (not to take my father and brother).
They hit her, they hit my little brothers and hit me so much and they
finally took my father and brother to a base," he said.
"It was a terrible situation at our place."
Most Afghans taken away by the Taleban, and by Pashtun ethnic groups,
were killed. The lucky ones were shot, others put in a hole in the
ground and stoned to death.
"I have no idea what happened to my father and brother but I have no
hope that they are still alive."
Believing Ali would also be arrested, his mother arranged for him to
flee the country with friends.
They drove to Pakistan then travelled to Indonesia using false
passports and documents.
"My friends went on another boat so I came here by myself."
But the refugee boat Ali sailed on was picked up by an Australian
patrol. Those on it were kept on board for 12 days before being taken
to Christmas Island.
There they were told by Australian immigration officials that they
would be given legal assistance if they went to a detention camp at
Nauru.
Almost two years later, Ali is still on the island, along with up to
35 unaccompanied minors. "The Australian Immigration Department
didn't do anything for us, we have never seen a lawyer," he said.
"New Zealand took the ones from the Tampa but the ones from Christmas
Island are still here."
Ali was interviewed by the department but was refused refugee status
because Australia believed Afghanistan, now under the protection of
United States coalition forces, was safe.
But Ali is Hazara, a minority group which he said had been persecuted
for centuries by other ethnic groups.
Those persecutors included the Pashtuns who now not only govern the
country, but were involved in taking his father and brother.
"We were living in a place where three sides were surrounded by
Pashtun," he said.
"When the Taleban came to the district, the Pashtun got together with
the Taleban and pooled their resources."
They arrested all "the big people" from groups that opposed them or
were involved in conflict with them. Ali's father was one.
Though he was not involved in the fighting himself, Ali believed he
would be killed if he went back to Afghanistan.
All he wants now is to live the rest of his life in peace and
freedom.
"We are a people who have always been persecuted, we are not the
people who are doing the persecuting."
The Dominion Post |
|
Adrift in the Pacific |
by Martin Kay
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Jan 2004
|
Adrift in the Pacific
Martin Kay
Dominion Post
SATURDAY , 03 JANUARY 2004
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2773340a6160,00.html
Sending boatpeople to Nauru put the asylum seekers out of sight, but
the problems remain unresolved. Martin Kay tracks the history of the
so-called 'Pacific Solution'.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard called it the "Pacific
Solution". One scathing critic labelled it "the Les Patterson
Solution", a reference to the crass, bumbling Aussie diplomat created
by comedian Barry Humphries.
Two years on, it seems the critic was closest to the truth.
Few Kiwis and Australians knew much about the tiny Pacific state of
Nauru before Mr Howard arranged for refugees stranded on the
Norwegian freighter Tampa to go there, and Papua New Guinea, in 2001.
Desolate and remote, way off the northeast coast of Australia, Nauru
is the world's smallest republic. With 12,000 people, it has little
presence on the international stage.
Keen gardeners may have recognised the name as a source of the
phosphate that is a key ingredient in fertiliser. Some might have
made the link with claims that the Russian Mafia laundered millions
of dollars through Nauru's banks in the 1990s.
But by and large, before Mr Howard's "Pacific Solution", most of his
constituents would have been blissfully ignorant of the tiny nation,
despite Australia having administered it for most of last century
till till 1968.
That changed in September 2001, when Nauru was hit upon as the answer
to an international standoff that lasted more than a week and forced
Australia's hand on a long-standing problem: what to do with the
thousands of boatpeople arriving on its shores every year?
Tampa skipper Arne Rinnan was sailing toward Singapore on August 26
when he answered an Australian Coastguard call to Indonesian ferry
sinking in international waters near Christmas Island, controlled by
Australia. When he arrived, he found a barely floating, waterlogged
wreck. By the time the 438 refugees were aboard, the ferry had broken
in two.
Captain Rinnan sailed for Christmas Island, believing that as
Australia had asked him to rescue the refugees, it would take them.
He was wrong. The refugees were the latest in a string of boatpeople
coming to Australia from Indonesia, and Mr Howard put his foot down.
Ignoring international condemnation, he refused to allow the Tampa
into Australian waters, as Indonesia was the closest landfall.
On August 29, Captain Rinnan defied Mr Howard and sailed to within
six kilometres of Christmas Island. He said the move was necessary
because he feared for the health of the refugees, including several
children and pregnant women, who were on the Tampa's open decks.
If he expected a sympathetic response, he was wrong again. Australian
troops boarded the Tampa and took control. Mr Howard was not for
turning; the refugees were not coming to Australia.
Over the next few days, pictures of the Tampa anchored off the
island's coast featured on television sets around the world as
several countries struggled to find a solution.
For many, Mr Howard's stance seemed inhumane, and critics within
Australia accused him of playing politics ahead of the November
election.
But he insisted that allowing the refugees into Australia would send
the wrong message. While Australia was more than willing to carry its
share of the refugee burden, it would not tolerate queue-jumpers.
"My starting point for that strong position is that Australia is the
second most generous country in the world after Canada in taking
refugees," he said. "We would like to find . . . a resolution that
respects the right of Australia to control who comes to this
country."
An unnamed Australian government spokesman was more forthright: "We
want to send a clear message to the people smugglers that we are not
going to be an easy touch. This is an international problem for which
there needs to be an international solution."
Urgent talks were held with Indonesia and Norway, New Zealand – which
offered to take 150 of the refugees – and the United Nations High
Commission for Human Rights.
One of the early suggestions included sending the refugees to East
Timor, recently independent after 25 years of Indonesian occupation.
ON THE weekend of September 2, an answer was found. The refugees
would be taken to Papua New Guinea. From there, 150, including four
pregnant women, would be flown to Auckland to be processed at the
Mangere Detention Centre before acceptance into New Zealand.
The rest would go to Nauru for processing there. If accepted as
refugees, they would go to a range of countries, including Australia.
It was an eyebrow-raising solution. Nauru is a windswept island of
just 21 square kilometres. Relentlessly mined throughout the 20th
century, its phosphate deposits had been its main source of income.
The British Phosphate Commission was set up to administer Nauru at
the end of World War I, to supply low-priced phosphate to farmers in
Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
In 1993, Australia offered Nauru an out-of-court settlement for
damages, agreeing to pay $2.5 million Australian annually for 20
years. New Zealand and Britain also agreed to a one-time payment of
$12 million each.
Nauru's economy went to pieces as the phosphate ran out. It became a
dubious international banking centre, a lucrative laundry for the
Russian Mafia.
It was short of food, water and electricity. Today it is in such a
poor state the Australian Government has been forced to find a
solution. Suggestions have included offering the entire population
Australian citizenship, or relocation to another island.
A similar proposal was floated in the 1960s, when Australia offered
an island off Queensland. Nauru rejected it because Australia would
not cede the island's sovereignty.
By the time the Tampa boatpeople were unloaded, hundreds more had
been stopped from entering Australia. Many were also sent to Nauru,
which was given A$30 million in aid.
However, little thought seems to have been given to the fate of
boatpeople who did not get refugee status. Recent events have
produced more thorny issues.
Most of the Tampa refugees and the 284 who remain on Nauru (who have
been denied refugee status) came from Afghanistan when the now-
deposed Muslim fundamentalist Taleban regime was in control.
Australia says that as Afghanistan is now safe, the refugees should
go home. They are refusing, however, and 45 recent hunger-strikers
have given new urgency to the question of what to do with them.
The New Zealand Government is trying to keep out of the mess. This
week, duty minister Rick Barker said the problem is "primarily a
matter for the Australian Government".
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is re-evaluating the
status of the remaining boatpeople and any decision on whether New
Zealand offers any of them sanctuary will not be made till that
process is complete.
The Government is clearly wary of being seen as a soft touch, and Mr
Barker says taking the refugees would send the wrong signal.
"There are proper procedures for handling these issues. Without
proper procedures, we would be simply overwhelmed and swamped."
Similar thinking saw Australia send the refugees to Nauru in the
first place, but it failed to stem the flow of boatpeople.
While Mr Howard's Pacific Solution must have seemed a good idea at
the time, it is fast becoming a problem all of its own.
The Dominion Post
|
|
Out of sight on Nauru no solution |
by Dominion Post editorial
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Jan 2004
|
Out of sight on Nauru no solution
Dominion Post
SATURDAY , 03 JANUARY 2004
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2773478a6220,00.html
The plight of the asylum seekers detained on Nauru is an outrage, The
Dominion Post writes in an editorial.
The Australian Government's so-called "Pacific Solution" to its
problem with illegal immigrants was no solution at all. Nor was it
ever intended as one.
Dumping the asylum seekers on Nauru, a tiny, isolated, baking hot,
destitute island near the equator, was a way of getting them out of
sight. It was an expedient stop-gap measure hatched by the Australian
Government with the dual purpose of denying the asylum seekers access
to Australian justice and providing a platform for Prime Minister
John Howard to act tough in the run-up to the 2001 election, which he
easily won.
Two years later, there are 284 desperate people still detained in
Nauru, a third of them children. Some are from the original group of
438 people rescued by the Norwegian freighter Tampa, from a sinking
boat heading from Indonesia to Australia. At the height of the
crisis, New Zealand took 140 of the boatpeople. Those remaining are
refusing to return to their home countries. No one else will take
them.
Compared with many other countries, New Zealand, because of its
isolation, has relatively few problems with illegal immigrants.
Australia, with its long, unprotected northern coast that lies within
striking distance of a leaky boat from Indonesia, has a genuine
vulnerability to large-scale illegal migration.
Any sympathy Australia's situation might engender, however, has been
quickly lost by its government's cynical manipulation of events. The
most outrageous was the claim that the Tampa boatpeople had thrown
their children into the water, allowing Mr Howard to respond that his
country would not succumb to blackmail. Two days before the election,
Australia was forced to admit that no children had been thrown
overboard and that, as defence forces had known all along, photos of
people in the water that the Government claimed corroborated its
story were in fact sailors rescuing a group of people from a
different capsize.
The "Pacific Solution" also reflects badly on Australia's attitude
toward the Pacific. It should not be a dumping ground for Australia's
problems.
New Zealand has recently taken more people from Nauru, including
women and children, reuniting them with their fathers and husbands,
some who were given refugee status in Australia but no entitlements
to family reunifications.
Australia is being too harsh. Although its government has a primary
duty to its own citizens, as a civilised Western democratic society
it also should be humanitarian. The New Zealand Government should be
putting more pressure on Australia and the United Nations to resolve
this mess.
The Dominion Post photographer and reporter who went to Nauru this
week to report on the detainees' hunger strike had to operate in a
clandestine manner simply to get on the island. The media is not
welcome there. Nauru is arguably one of the most isolated spots on
Earth, and deliberately chosen by Australia because if the public
could see the detainees, this prolonged outrage would get more
attention. But for a few pressure groups, the media and friends and
family of the asylum seekers, the world has all but forsaken them.
Out of sight, out of mind is the approach Australia wants to take.
But that is no solution. |
|
Nauru: the Guantanamo Bay of the Pacific |
by NZ Green Party
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Jan 2004
|
Nauru: the Guantanamo Bay of the Pacific
Sunday, 4 January 2004, 12:47 pm
Press Release: Green Party
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0401/S00008.htm
Nauru: the Guantanamo Bay of the Pacific
Green MP Keith Locke is demanding the Government makes some effort to
intervene in the tragedy unfolding on Nauru. The first journalist
reports from Nauru for many months, filed by a Dominion Post
reporter, paint a scene of tragedy and despair amongst the asylum
seekers imprisoned on the remote island. Many speak of ending their
lives and some hunger-strikers are reported as being close to death.
"The Australian government's fixation with a 'Pacific solution' to
its perceived asylum-seeker 'problem' has turned Nauru into another
Guantanamo Bay," said Mr Locke, the Green Foreign Affairs
spokesperson. "New Zealand's meek acceptance of this injustice
doesn't square with our initiatives in other areas of regional
concern.
"We have - quite rightly - campaigned against nuclear testing on
Mururoa and sent peacekeepers to East Timor and the Solomons. Why are
we now silent in the face of such injustice, so close to home? "The
conditions for the asylum seekers are clearly intolerable. Why else
would hunger strikers risk their lives to bring their plight to world
attention? New Zealand must take some urgent initiatives, even if it
offends the Howard government, which is prepared to let refugees die
to keep them out of Australia. "We all know that the war continues in
Afghanistan. It is simply not acceptable to force people who have
fled that country in terror to return there now. If it is such a safe
place to return to, what are armed New Zealand troops doing there?
"We have a duty to help Australia to resolve this crisis, as
responsible citizens of the Pacific.
"New Zealand must first demand that elementary human rights are
respected on Nauru, such as the right of the asylum seekers to talk
to lawyers of their choice. But we should also make a public offer to
take some of the asylum seekers, as we did two years ago with
refugees from the Tampa. Mr Locke is calling on the New Zealand
government to initiate urgent discussions on the Nauru situation with
the Australian authorities and the UN High Commissioner on Refugees.
"Peoples lives depend on quick action," said Mr Locke. "We don't have
the time to endlessly waffle about process while people are suffering
so much on Nauru. The only real 'Pacific solution' must include New
Zealand." |
|
Australia to NZ: take Nauru people |
by theage.com
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Jan 2004
|
Australia to NZ: take Nauru people
This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/04/1073151214983.html
January 4, 2004 - 10:05PM
An Australian Government commissioned report on Nauru's asylum
seekers recommends New Zealand accept them as refugees.
The report -- to be released on Monday -- says political intervention
by New Zealand could be their only hope.
"It's a great alternative," said the report's author, Gholam
Aboss. "If you (take them) you would be doing a lot of humanitarian
good."
The official report follows the Dominion Post's expose on the asylum
seekers' compound on Nauru and the condition of hunger strikers,
including some who have sewn their lips together.
Reporter Kim Ruscoe and photographer Andrew Gorrie were told to "get
on the next plane out of here" by Nauruan president Rene Harris after
secretly interviewing asylum seekers.
Mr Aboss, a Sydney-based Afghan community leader, was sent to Nauru
last month to prepare a report for Australian Immigration Minister
Amanda Vanstone after a number of detainees began a hunger strike. He
was accompanied by former Australian Immigration Minister John
Hodges, who is also preparing a report.
Mr Aboss said he was still finishing the report, but the main
suggestion would be for New Zealand to step in to help resolve the
situation.
"It (would) be the ultimate wish of those people to come to New
Zealand if the Australian government doesn't issue visas for them.
New Zealand could play a great part (in this)."
He said that, if the Australian government did not change its
immigration policy, New Zealand could be the asylum seekers' only
chance.
"It's a grave situation but the government have their policies and
their reason but in my report I have given some alternatives.
"I am hoping the Australian government will do something to end the
crisis. We can't do anything because it's up to the government
authorities to end the situation, we only report to the government."
The detainees were free to return to Afghanistan, but Mr Aboss said
it was not a fair option for them at present and it would not be
something he would recommend to the government. He said people who
had moved back reported there was no peace or security.
"Right now Afghanistan is too dark. The political situation is a bit
hazy and we don't know what's going to be happening."
Last month, Afghanistan's ambassador to Australia, Mahmoud Saikai,
warned that sending asylum seekers back will would undermine efforts
to quash terrorism.
Mr Aboss was concerned Nauru's hunger strikers could suffer organ
failure at any time.
This story was found at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/04/1073151214983.html |
|
Question |
by Elizabeth Collom
collom.elizabeth (nospam) saugov.sa.gov.au (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
05 Jan 2004
|
|
What are the details of the stories the detainees told? So far this story is about the heroism of the reporters. Surely that was not the object of the exercise. |
|
Detainees in prison on Nauru, say locals |
by KIM RUSCOE
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Jan 2004
|
Detainees in prison on Nauru, say locals
05 January 2004
By KIM RUSCOE
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2774358a11,00.html
Asylum seekers are being kept prisoners on Nauru, residents say.
"We feel sorry for them. They're in prison here," said a resident,
who did not want to be named for fear of losing his job with the
government-owned Nauru Phosphate Corporation.
"This is a free island, but they're not free. They are not allowed to
talk to the local people, but the kids do go to school with the local
children."
He said Nauruans had no knowledge of how the 284 asylum seekers in
the island's Topside detention camp were being treated.
"They keep them all away from us."
Despite supermarket shelves on the island being almost empty of food,
Nauruans did not resent that supplies had been shipped in for the
detainees from Australia.
"We're lucky there are refugees here now, so we get money. If there
(weren't) refugees here, maybe Australia would have to support Nauru
again," the resident said. "The Government is broke, it doesn't have
any money."
NPC workers were paid last week for the first time since March but
the island's only bank allowed them to withdraw just A$100 each.
It was the first time it had received money to pay out for many
months.
"There were queues of people lined up outside the bank to collect
their money," he said.
While they wait to be paid and for the bank to allow access to their
funds, residents survive by fishing and diving for sea food and
raising chickens in their backyard, he said.
"This island used to be one of the richest in the world. Now it's
going upside-down," he said. |
|
No NZ move to take asylum-seekers |
by NZ City
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Jan 2004
|
No NZ move to take asylum-seekers
6 January 2004
NZ City
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.asp?id=38619&cat=978
Govt will stay on sidelines regarding Nauru-based Afghan asylum-
seekers; NZ Afghan spokesman wants them to come here
The Government is standing firm with its stance on the Nauru asylum
seekers.
It is understood an Australian Government-commissioned report on the
group is urging New Zealand to accept them.
But duty minister Steve Maharey says Australia itself created the
situation by paying Nauru to take the Afghans.
He says it is now a matter for the Australian Government and the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees to sort out.
Mr Maharey says there has been no official approach for New Zealand
to step in and it would be inappropriate at this point to do anything
but remain on the sidelines.
He says Australia has not asked New Zealand to step in, and we will
not unless we are asked to.
Steve Maharey points out there is constant discussion about such
issues between officials of both countries.
However, New Zealand's Afghan community is hoping the Government will
help the remaining Nauru asylum-seekers.
A total of 284 of them, including 93 children, are housed on the
island.
Afghan community spokesman Siraj Salarzi says it would be excellent
if we could help.
He says Australia's record on its treatment of asylum-seekers speaks
for itself, and it would be a tragedy if some of those on a hunger
strike were to die.
Mr Salarzi says about 2,500 people of Afghan origin now live in New
Zealand.
He says Australia's record on its treatment asylum-seekers speaks for
itself.
© 2004 NZCity, IRN |
|
Nauru refugee plight despicable |
by Waikato Times editorial
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Jan 2004
|
Nauru refugee plight despicable
06 January 2004
Waikato Times
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2776287a6220,00.html
On a tiny island just south of the equator and some 4000km from
Sydney, a disgraceful but easily preventable travesty is unfolding
that may soon result in death for a number of people, writes the
Waikato Times in an editorial.
Nauru has become the temporary home to 284 refugees, dumped there by
Australia after its Prime Minister John Howard refused them entry.
The asylum seekers, from Afghanistan, are not allowed access to
lawyers or supporters and the media is banned. Nauru, it seems, has
become the Guantanamo Bay of the Pacific. Subterfuge and lax Customs
procedures last week saw two New Zealand journalists gain access to
the island. Their reports make horrifying reading.
Refugees have sewn their lips together and are on a hunger strike in
protest at conditions in the detention camp. Medical facilities are
inadequate and under-resourced. Worse still is the refugees' lack of
status. Denied official recognition, the detainees refuse to go home
in fear of their lives.
It is a situation created by Australia, whose leader refuses to
accept responsibility for it. Howard's Mr Tough Guy attitude is
reprehensible. He has thrown $30 million at Nauru in the hope the
problem would disappear. It hasn't. Howard's aim was to show
Australia would not be a soft touch for refugees landing on its
shores. He achieved that, but it comes at the expense of the men,
women and 93 children who remain on Nauru. Soon some of them may be
dead and Howard will be responsible.
This is unlikely to faze him. Since his committal of Australian
troops to the Iraq war, Howard has regarded himself as an
international leader of great import. He has even said Australia is
willing to become a "Pacific policeman" in troubled countries. Given
Nauru's experience as a refugee dumping ground, any Pacific hotspot
would be wise to be wary of such offers.
Meanwhile, there remains the immediate problem of what to do to
persuade the hunger strikers to give up their campaign for the sake
of their health. Clearly international pressure –- including
condemnation from New Zealand –- needs to be applied to Australia to
force it to reconsider taking the refugees. This is a humanitarian
crisis and Australia needs to respond accordingly.
NZ Green Party foreign affairs spokesman Keith Locke has warned the
Government New Zealand will have the death of any hunger strikers on
its conscience as well if it does not intervene. To some extent that
is true but the answer does not lie in this country taking more of
the refugees to ease a problem created by Australia.
Reassessment of the asylum seekers' refugee status is apparently
under way. This must be completed immediately and Australia warned it
must find a solution. As one refugee on Nauru said: "All we want is a
peaceful place to live and freedom."
Howard, in his eagerness to please his new best friends George W Bush
and Tony Blair, is ignoring problems closer to home. He must not be
allowed to get away with it. |
|
