Making Foreign Policy: Maritime Asylum Seekers in Australia - Literature review Example

Running Header: Making Foreign Policy: Maritime Asylum Seekers in Australia Name: University: Course Title: Instructor: Date: Making Foreign Policy: Maritime Asylum Seekers in Australia Introduction A country’s foreign policy informs how that particular country relates with the international community and contributes to issues of international interest be they political, social, economic or cultural in nature. Thus, the Australian maritime security draws largely from both domestic law and the international legal frameworks. Australian foreign policy especially with regard to maritime asylum seekers is informed by the ongoing role of states and territories with regard to the management and the regulation of maritime areas. This is in line with the internationally recognized need for policing within the coastal waters. Klien, Mossop and Rothwell (2010, p. 40) notes that with regard to the international legal framework under the international law of the sea, Australia has been in the forefront in the adoption of the four key conventions on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. With regard to the contemporary international law of the sea, Australia continues to be actively engaged with international bodies created under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The purpose of this is to examine the making of foreign policy with reference to maritime asylum seekers in Australia. Maritime Asylum Seeker Issue in Australia Australian boundaries on the northern and eastern sides are readily accessible by boat. This is an issue of security in Australia with regard to the protection of the borders. Australian-Indonesian maritime border is prone to smuggling of illegal immigrants of Indonesian origin especially to the northern parts of Australian islands, as well as the Australian coastline (White 2010 p. 157). Australian authorities view such incidents as a great threat to the security of the Australian nationals. According to White (2010, p. 157), the issue of maritime asylum seekers in Australia gained publicity after the MV Tampa case which ensued in 2001. In the 2001 MV Tampa case, 433 people of Afghani origin were rescued from the verge of death in the Indian Ocean due to a sinking wooden fishing boat they had boarded to carry them to Australia. The rescued asylum seekers were regarded as a great threat to the security of the Australian Christmas Island and were initially denied refuge under the direction of Prime Minister Howard. However, they were later taken off and transported by force to Nauru by Australian navy ships for processing. The crews of the sunken fishing boat from Indonesia were charged with smuggling people into Australia. After what popularly became known as the MV Tampa incidence, the Australian government formulated and implemented the “Pacific Solution” (White 2010, p. 159). The aim of this policy was to deter any asylum seeker arriving in the offshore place in Australia from violating the provisions of Migration Act of 1958, as well as applying for a protection visa. Australia also engaged in negotiation with pacific nations such as Papua New Guinea and Nauru to intercept and detain maritime asylum seekers at the cost of Australia until their refugee status is determined and their claims processed. However, after Howard’s government lost office and Rudd’s government took office at the end of 2007, Pacific Solution was ended and arrangements with Papua New Guinea and Nauru were disregarded. Rudd’s government maintained Christmas Island as the centre for processing maritime asylum seekers in Australia. Impact of Individual Leaders on Maritime Asylum Seeker Policy After the September 2001 terrorists attacks on upon New York, as well as Washington, DC, Australian authorities took several initiatives in order to respond to the possible threats posed by international terrorists. Due to the security risks and threats posed by maritime asylum seekers in Australia, various leaders and their governments all have made significant contributions towards addressing the problem (Humans Right Watch 2010, p. 38). For the last decade, the Australian governments led by Howard, Rudd and Gillard have all taken the steps to limit the entry of asylum seekers by boat (Klien, Mossop and rothwell, 2010, p. 41). Howard on his part was instrumental in enforcing what become popularly known as the “Pacific Solution” in which he sought to limit the entry of maritime asylum seekers into the Australian territory. The Howard administration also oversaw “Operation Relex” led by the Royal Australian Navy. This operation was aimed at intercepting maritime vessels transporting asylum seekers into Australia. In the international front, the Howard administration supported US-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) which was launched in 2003. This initiative was aimed at interdicting vessels suspected of carrying maritime asylum seekers and weapons of mass destruction which would potential cause security threats to maritime states such as Japan, Italy, the UK and Australia (Klien, Mossop and rothwell, 2010, p. 40). Howard also contributed to the limiting the entry of asylum seekers into Australia by boat by establishing Maritime Identification Zone. This became the centre of focus with regard to the protection of offshore oil and gas infrastructure (Klien, Mossop & rothwell 2010, p. 42). Kevin Rudd who took over office from Howard in 2007 maintained Christmas Island as the centre for the detention, as well as centre for processing maritime asylum seekers in Australia. According to Koser (2010, p. 3), it is during the term of Kevin Rudd as the premier that the interception of the 100th boat carrying asylum seekers to Australia took place on March 28, 2010. Rudd advocated for the asylum seekers detention policy and on April announced the suspension of processing of applications from new asylum seekers especially from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. These countries account for the majority of maritime asylum seekers in Australia. Kevin Rudd’s government also emphasized the establishment of Criminal Intelligence Fusion Centre, Anti-people Smuggling and Other Measures Bill, as well as closer regulation of remittance dealers (Koser 2010, p. 3 and 4). All these measures were aimed at restricting and penalizing the activities of migrant smugglers in Australia. Prime Minister Julia Gillard on her part lifted the suspension of the processing of claims by asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka put in place by Kevin Rudd immediately after taking over office. On her part she advocated for the adoption of a regional protection framework for the asylum seekers which includes closer cooperation with countries involved with the origin, transit and destination of the maritime asylum seekers especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Julia Gillard’s other contribution with regard to limiting the entry of asylum seekers by boat includes bilateral cooperation with Timor, Trafficking in Persons and other Transnational Crime, the Bali process on People Smuggling, increasing the space for detaining asylum seekers in Curtin, as well as opening up of new detention facilities in Adelaide Hills and Weipa (Koser 2010, p. 3 and 4). Global and Domestic Determinants on Maritime Asylum Seeker Policy Hatton (2005, p. 1) notes that policy issues regarding asylum seekers has been one of the most controversial topics in the international domain, as well as in domestic affairs of most of the countries involved for a couple of decades. Thus both domestic and international policies on maritime asylum seekers have been characterized by and met with tougher policies with the view of deterring and limiting them. For instance, within the European Union the proposal to have a Common European Asylum System is at a crucial stage. The primary instrument or rather foundation that determines asylum policies within the European Union is the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951. This has further been facilitated by the 1967 protocol to which all European Union member countries became signatories (Hatton 2005, p. 1). In Australia policies on asylum seekers have been determined by many factors among them the need to protect the Australia’s offshore assets, which includes offshore oil and gas infrastructure. The national security of Australia is another determinant of the domestic and international policies regarding asylum seekers. Thus, all the policy frameworks adopted by various Australian leaders like John Howard, Kevin Rudd and lately, Julia Gillard were in one way or another aimed at enhancing the national security and protection of both Australian citizens and their property from possible threat from illegal immigrants, terrorists and asylum seekers inside the territory of Australia (Woolner 2010, p. 55-58). Cornelius and Rosenblum (2005, p. 106) addresses the determinants of domestic and international asylum seekers policy from an immigration perspective. They reiterate that the increased immigration flows into the developed world such as the European Union, Australia and the United States can be attributed to increased economic integration, structural demand for labour within the destination countries, reduced costs of transportation, path-dependent migration connections and linkages, as well as the current global demographics (Cornelius & Rosenblum, 2004, p. 106). They also argue that policies on immigration , which essentially also involve asylum seekers focuses on the gaps that exist between the popular demand for tighter control measures against immigration and asylum seekers, and ineffective or rather limited responses by state authorities. According to Cornelius and Rosenblum (2005, p. 106), three crucial factors determine domestic and global maritime asylum seeker policies. First, domestic interest groups which is the most common approach in providing explanation for immigration and maritime asylum seeker policy making by affected countries. From economic perspective asylum seekers provide cheap labour to land and capital owners in the destination countries. Noneconomic interest groups on the other hand cite ecological capacity, as well as national identity concerns. The views of these interest groups have a bearing on the policies adopted by countries with regard to asylum seekers. Second, political institutions which legislate over the asylum seeker policies and may reflect national political interest especially when they are or not settled and they become swing districts. Third, international factors which comes in three levels. The first level concerns the fact that migration and maritime asylum seeking occurs within a generalized process of global political and economic integration. The second level concerns the complex nature of the relationship that exists between asylum seeking, migration and national security of the affected country. Last, the role of international diplomatic considerations in shaping maritime asylum seeker policy adopted by a particular country, as well as the international community (Cornelius & Rosenblum 2005, p. 106 -109). Conclusion This paper has examined the making of foreign policy with reference to maritime asylum seekers in Australia. The paper has also provided an in-depth analysis of the impact of individual leaders such as Howard, Rudd and Gillard on maritime asylum seeker policy in Australia, global and domestic determinants on maritime asylum seeker policy. From the discussion provided, it is evident that the security of the Australian maritime domain is fundamental and has continued to shape Australia’s foreign policy in this area. Thus, maritime asylum seeker policy must focus on developing expertise in the environment within which it will operate. In a nutshell, to come up with a formidable foreign policy that addresses the issue of asylum seeker, Australian leadership must recognized the benefits of effective governance in this area. References Cornelius, W.A. & Rosenblum, M.R 2005, Immigration and politics: working paper no. 105, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. Vol. 8, No. 5 pp. 99-119. Retrieved March 23, 2012 from: http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/PUBLICATIONS/wrkg105.pdf Hatton, TJ 2005, European asylum policy: discussion paper no. 1721, Retrieved March 23, 2012 from: http://ftp.iza.org/dp1721.pdf Human Rights Watch 2002, By invitation only: Australian asylum policy, Human Rights Watch Report Vol. 14, No. 10. Klien, N., Mossop, J. & Rothwell, DR 2010, Maritime security: international law and policy perspectives from Australia, Routledge, Abingdon. Koser, K 2010, Responding to boat arrivals in Australia: time for a reality check, Low Institute for International Policy, Sydney. Retrieved March 23, 2012 from: http://asetts.vacau.com/Documents/Koser.pdf White, M 2010, Australian offshore laws, The Federation Press, Sydney. Woolner, D 2011, The governance of security in Australia’s maritime domain, Security Challenges Vol. 7, No. 2 pp. 55-80. Read More