Australian government’s red herring
... FM’s statement a slur on Sri Lanka

by Bandu de Silva
Former Ambassador
Courtesy The Island 27-02-2007

The recent announcement by Australian Foreign Minister A. Downer and Immigration and Citizenship Minister Kevin Andrew that a group of 83 illicit Sri Lankan immigrants would not be repatriated to a country ‘where they will face prosecution’ is a slur on the Sri Lankan government and a cover up for Australian government’s shameful record of treating illicit immigrants. The statement only helps to detract international attention from controversial handling of illicit immigrants by confining them to territories outside the mainland.

The old Australian policy of keeping Australia ‘white’ by excluding coloured Asians from its shores still manifests itself in various ways, even though the ‘White Australia’ policy has undergone cosmetic changes.

How could the Australian government, in an important policy statement by two key Ministers assume that Sri Lanka is a country where they (returning illicit immigrants) face persecution? Has it got evidence of such persecution to support the statement? If so, it must come out with such evidence without discrediting a friendly commonwealth country. Isn’t the mere acceptance of what the illicit immigrants declare a sheer irresponsibility on the part of the Australian government?

This prosecution and persecution story is an old ruse that illicit immigrants to all countries–not only from Sri Lanka but from others too–have been employing for over a quarter of a century. I saw evidence of this in Europe, where a statement made before an Inspector of Police was sufficient proof to accept claims of prosecution. In France, forged summons forms were available in the market for a fee with a Magistrate’s seal of the Traffic Court in Colombo placed on it and they were filled with the illicit immigrant’s name and dates of summons as proof as evidence of prosecution. I procured one of those forms and found that it was a forged version of a document at the Narahenpita Traffic Court. The French police didn’t conduct investigations to verify the authenticity of the document or the alleged offence. It was only an excuse to permit the illicit immigrants to enter the country. They were also, at times, backed by paedophiles and the drug mafia.

In Switzerland, this was an issue over which I was engaged in discussions with the Swiss authorities for over six years without conclusion. The Swiss government even created a separate office to deal with the problem of Sri Lankan (Tamil) illicit immigrants (in whose support some religious groups were very active) to conduct negotiations with us. These people made use of Switzerland’s traditional policy of supporting refugees from the days of Calvin’s reforms. The Swiss government which was sympathetic to the illicit immigrants who were mis-named ‘asylum seekers’ or ‘refugees’ found it becoming a problem for the local people. That was when they became concerned and discussed with me measures to repatriate what they themselves called ‘economic refugees’. We even invited Swiss Police to visit Sri Lanka to watch the handling of returning ‘illicit immigrants’ at the re-entry point in Colombo to their respective destinations in the country.

So, what the Australian Ministers are now raking up is an old question which is quite familiar to the whole world. Doesn’t the Australian government, even as a matter of courtesy, owe it to the Sri Lankan government to verify with the latter if the claims made by the illicit immigrants is true. How could the government of Sri Lanka any longer sit with the Australian government, or any other for that matter, at the Meeting of Commonwealth Heads as was held in Brisbane a few years ago, if there is no mutual respect for each other?

Doesn’t the Australian government’s action even in this case point to the way they are proceeding? While they are telling the world that the group of illicit immigrants would not be repatriated to ‘a country where they will face prosecution’ (they do not name Sri Lanka), they are not admitting them to the mainland of Australia. Why?

This demonstrates that Australia’s policy towards illicit immigrants is not genuine. It smacks of the former racist ‘White Australia’ policy. Even in the present case, they are negotiating with Nauru and Indonesia and other countries in the neighbourhood to accept these people. That is what they have been doing with earlier groups of illicit immigrants, too. It is to cover up that shameful policy that they pretend to be good Samaritans and make proclamations.

As I wrote in articles some time ago Nauru is an island of a peaceful fishing community in the Pacific which was exploited to the bone by imperial powers and by Australia under Trusteeship arrangement for its phosphates. Now it is a desolate moon-scape land with no prospects of agriculture or other livelihood. It is being used by Australia as a dumping ground for illicit immigrants. That country has been reduced to the status of offering its desolate waste to `dump’ illicit immigrants!

What more punishment can these people expect? Isn’t that worse than the ‘convicts’ treatment that Australians themselves went through a few generations back?

This is Australia’s shameful record which it is trying to cover up by calling this country one where returning illicit immigrants will be prosecuted.

If there are violations of the law by its own citizens on immigration matters like forging of passports or committing of other criminal offences, won’t Australia take action against them under its laws? In any case, isn’t it the done thing to discuss the issue with the Sri Lankan authorities first to see a way out of the problem to repatriate the group to Sri Lanka as other countries have done, without going to make some pronouncements sans proof, which is damaging to the reputation of a friendly Commonwealth country?

What does it point to except a superior attitude? Isn’t there a thing called diplomacy in the Australian vocabulary? Shame!