The wrong kind of refugee: Australia exports its problems to Cambodia | Asian Correspondent

The wrong kind of refugee: Australia exports its problems to Cambodia | Asian Correspondent
 Michelle Tolson Oct 02, 2014

A Cambodian Buddhist monk shouts slogans together with protesters near the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Friday. Pic: AP.

Escaping conflict in their home countries, asylum seekers came by boat to wealthy Australia only to be packed off to a small island that built its economy on mining phosphates from bird droppings (known informally as “Bird Shit Island”) for holding and processing. With the phosphate supply depleted, South Pacific island state of Nauru signed in 2001 a $10 million aid package with Australia to be funneled to health care, education and infrastructure withAustralia paying for the holding and processing its asylum seekers. Now Australia has inked a $40 million deal with Cambodia, one of the poorest nations in the world, to take processed refugees who volunteer to go.

CAMBODIA and Australia signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) last Friday to take processed and refugees off Australia’s hands that are currently being held on the remote island of Nauru.

Pisey Ly, a grassroots Cambodian activist who advocates for marginalized groups such as homeless migrants and sex workers, told Asian Correspondent “although Australian and Cambodian governments claimed that they’re only sending and receiving refugees who voluntarily agreed to be resettled in Cambodia, I question whether or not those refugees have… a real choice. They ran from their own countries escaping war, conflicts, violence, political threats and poverty, and seek a better place for survival and protection.”

Phil Robertson, deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch told Asian Correspondent by telephone from Bangkok that “the accepted [processed] refugees are made up of a variety of people such as Hazara [from Afghanistan], Pakistani, Rohingya [from Burma/Myanmar], with Australia observing the process. They are seen as poor, arriving on boats, so they are viewed as not worth supporting. Yet if they fly in, they are treated completely differently.” In December 2014, Australia changed the parameters to make itnearly impossible to get accepted as a refugee if one arrives by boat.

Many decades previously, Cambodia and neighboring Vietnam had their own refugees fleeing by boat, many of who were resettled in Western countries.

“Boat people in previous times were processed correctly but in this case it is being undermined,” explained Robertson. “I think the really sad part of this is it will undermine refugee protection and allow countries to pick and choose which refugees they want. If a claim is legitimate, it should be accepted.  Refugees are not cars or cargo on a ship.”

This situation has been compared to the buying and selling of human beings. While Robertson does not quite accept this arguement, local activists do.

Ly explains “according to the UN Trafficking Protocol, trafficking requires three elements: recruiting, transporting, harboring or receiving persons with the use of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation.” Ly says reviewing the parameters, the situation looks coercive. “That’s why I am wondering about the legal aspect in relation to the transfer of refugees under this recent Australian-Cambodian government’s resettlement agreement whether or not it is a trafficking on removing adults and minors against their wills and exchange for values and the value here is aid from Australian government to Cambodian government.”

The details of the deal are indeed shrouded in mystery. The signing occurred two days after the end of a major Cambodian holiday when an exodus of urban workers returned to their family members in the countryside to honor departed ancestors. A hastily organized protest occurred at the Australian Embassy on Friday, September 26. Activists have not been able to see what the MoU entails and press were not allowed to ask questions.

Sophea Chrek, a former garment worker and labor activist told Asian Correspondent “we don’t know what is in the deal but know that $40 million USD is part of the agreement, but not the details.

“There were about 100 people at the protest. We wish there were more but there was a big national holiday [P’chum Ben] and everyone was getting back from the countryside. Not many people knew. We only knew from sharing information with other activist groups.”

This lack of transparency is worrisome to activists like Chrek and Ly. On Tuesday, local media reported an unsigned copy of the MoU revealed that refugees were required to leave the capital Phnom Penh after a year in order to continue receiving support.

Robertson says “that’s kind of worrisome. That indicates these people are not getting a full ride from Australia’s tax payers. After 2-3 years when the news cycle dies down, they are sent off to the countryside.”

In terms of existing rehabilitation centers already set to support marginalized Cambodian people, Ly says “Department of Social Affairs continue to rely on NGOs vocational training centers with few basic counselling skills, not professional ones, to receive some of these people both adults and children. We know that these NGOs are relying on external aid for [their] operation with inadequate staff and skills to accommodate these vulnerable people. This is not to mention some of the cases that involve physical and sexual abuses.”

In short, she does not see the situation as an improvement for Australia’s asylum seekers. Cambodia is greatly lacking in mental health services for its own people and is known to have high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder from the years of conflict which continued in the provinces through the late 1990s.

“Transcultural Psychosocial Organization Cambodia (TPO Cambodia) is known as a good organization providing mental counselling service but again it is not a state service and we are not sure how much capacity they have for the operation,” Ly continues. “Once the funding has a shortfall, will the service be reliable? Similar to the Cambodian government in this case, once the Australian government ends its aid, will the government have sufficient funds to operate services for refugees? But I am not sure if it will be the government’s operation, or if the Australian government will [place] conditions to hire private company to run rehabilitation centers like they do in Papua New Guinea and Christmas Island.”

Given Cambodia continues to rely heavily on foreign aid and has a shortfall of government funds to support basic healthcare, education and other social services without international funds, Cambodia looks like an unlikely destination for refugees. But perhaps that it why the country was chosen. Aid-dependent and indebted countries while not lacking in free will, have limited options.

“The island [of Nauru] itself is heavily indebted, with low employment,” Robertson explains. “There is nothing there so they [asylum seekers] are stuck in the middle of the Pacific. The island formerly was $20,000 per capita and comparable to Singapore but it was mined heavily for phosphates from bird droppings and the funds were poorly managed. The government made a deal with Australia to hold their refugees but it has gone very, very wrong. Nauru itself has very little negotiating leverage.”

As an impoverished country, Cambodia surely is not in a better negotiating position?

Ly states “I see this as the business opportunity between Australian and Cambodian governments, and possibly contract private institutions to operate either companies or NGOs over vulnerable and marginalized human lives.”

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has publicly distanced itself from the situation. Chrek wishes for it to take a stronger position. “I wonder what the role of the UN is in this. What are you doing? Where are you in this?”

UNHCR in Cambodia has no listed budget for refugees according to its website, but Robertson believes there are about 50 accepted refugees and 20 in process, with most reliant on NGOs for support as they are not allowed to work in the country while their case is being determined.

Robertson explains it has only one representative in Cambodia who must report to the regional office. A poor, international aid-dependent country and a minimal UNHCR presence provides little push-back against the relatively wealthy Australian government’s reach, which is making it known that they do not want to accept the wrong kind of refugee.

As Robertson says, “they say they are respecting the principal [of the refugee convention] but they are undermining it actually. It’s not ‘Well you are a Hazara from Afghanistan so we can’t take you.’”

Australia cannot stop Japanese whaling, expert says | Asian Correspondent

Australia cannot stop Japanese whaling, expert says | Asian Correspondent
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon Jan 13, 2014 

An International law expert from the National University of Australia said Australia cannot stop the Japanese from whaling in the Southern Ocean and its relentless monitoring activities have no legal ground.

Donald Rothwell told the ABC  that Australia’s surveillance may compromise the country’s claim to sovereignty over the Antarctic.  
Speaking to Lucy Carter, Rothwell asked:

 Well the key issue that really needs to be asked is what is Australia’s capacity from a legal perspective to undertake any form of surveillance or monitoring and ultimately law enforcement against Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean?

From the international law perspective, it’s really not in doubt that Australia has no capacity under international law to seek to go and enforce the provisions of the whaling convention against the Japanese whalers.

Nisshin Maru rams The Bob Barker in one of the clashes in the Southern Ocean (Photo: Sea Shepherd)

Japan, for one, does not recognize Australia’s sovereignty beyond its Exclusive Economic Zone and will not bow to any pressure from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to impose a prolonged and “unnecessary” whaling moratorium.

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, along with other previous Japanese governments, made this point clear long time ago. The Ministry pointed out that Japan “strongly supports the protection of endangered species” but it also needs to defend its research activities which prove that “whales are not endangered.” Japan maintains its position as responsible and that that it uses a comprehensive approach to whaling and sustainable use of marine resources.


The Ministry argued that from the 1980’s, whale species were abundant again following IWC’s measures to protect marine species in the 1960s and 1970s. During those times, several whale species were over-harvested and effective measures to protect the endangered species were urgently called for. Japan said IWC “did an outstanding job on this subject in the mid-1970′s to protect blue whales and other endangered species, and Japan highly appreciates its effort.”

This year, Japan’s Minister for Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, Yoshimasa Hayashi,  informed the IWC that the Japanese fleet would be operating anywhere between waters south of Africa, and south-east of New Zealand.  He added that he had issued “special permits” to send the fleet to take up to 935 Antarctic minkes,  50 fin whales, and 50 humpbacks.

Yushin Maru and the Kyo Maru No.1 transfer whales to the Nisshin Maru factory ship, Southern Ocean/ Dec 21, 2005

Norway, Iceland aid Japanese whale imports

In defiance to the IWC, Norway and Iceland are helping Japan to import tonnes of whale meat this year.

Washington DC-based Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) announced a statement it has obtained new documents showing Norway is playing a key role in Iceland’s massive exports of whale to Japan. 

Iceland is shipping the bulk of whale meat and blubber to Japan’s Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd via Norway. Kyodo is implicated in the controversial whaling within Australia’s Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha announced in December last year that it would begin imports of Norwegian whale meat in 2014. The company said the imports will be sold “in order to help subsidize future Japanese scientific whaling efforts.” 

Norway’s Environment Agency granted Reine-based Lofothval two permits to send whale products to Japan. One shipment of 5,000 kg is identified as whale meat only from Lofothval, while a second shipment is identified as a re-export of 5,000 kg of Icelandic minke whale meat and blubber, AWI claims.

Another Norwegian company, Myklebust Trading AS,  also sought government’s permission to ship up to 34,381 kg of minke whale products to the Toshi International Company in Japan. This would be the second shipment from Myklebust to Toshi since 2013, AWI said. Statistics shows that 14.1 metric tons of whale meat were imported from Iceland into Norway in February 2013.

AWI said anti-whaling countries are enraged with the latest Japanese whale imports that will soon spark protests before the International Court of Justice which is expected to issue a ruling this year on a case filed by Australia calling for Japan to stop whaling.

The iconic whales at the entrance of Taiji (Photo: Japan Focus.org)

Taiji vows to uphold whaling tradition

Taiji, a small island-townhip in southeastern Japan, notorious for its tradition of marine mammal slaughter, has forged community alliance to support the long-held tradition of whaling. This township stubbornly insists that “whales have no national borders, they live in deep seas, and  migrate freely across and through the waters of national jurisdiction, hence different people have different views about the whales.”


The general perception of whale in Taiji is that whale is part of the marine food resources, and whaling is no different from hunting and farming. 

Japan, like Norway, Denmark, Russia, and Iceland treats whale meat as food, and where the consumption of marine food resources exceed the consumption of land animal meat. 

It is believed that Japan and Iceland have the longest life expectancy — possibly attributed to people living a lifestyle of a balanced diet coming from the sea.

In its Declaration on Traditional Whaling (2006), summit attendees denounced the “double standard” given by conservationists to criticize whaling as a cruel act.

Among the many points of the Declaration,

It is a double standard by giving a name to a particular whale” (read – dolphin!) and treating the issue on the individual animal basis while promoting culling of over-populated wildlife (kangaroo, deer, and camel) by treating the cull issue on a species basis for the sake of preservation of species and not focusing on its aspect of cruelty.

Australia’s relentless surveillance

The Bob Barker sustained damage from the Japanese fleet. (Photo: Sea Shepherd)

Sea Shepherd Australia’s (SSA) Operation Relentless is out in the Southern Ocean to disturb the Japanese whalers. SSA reported last week it located the three Japanese vessels and took footage of one ship carrying three slaughtered minke whales.

The Japanese Yushin Maru No.3 also pursued The Bob Barker, but it stopped the chase when The Bob Barker crossed Australia’s EEZ, 200 miles of Macquarie Island. The harpoon ship stopped one mile outside the zone, the SSA Captain Peter Hammarstedt reported.

The Steve Irwin and The Sam Simon have been patrolling the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in pursuit of the Nisshin Maru. SSA said the Japanese vessels have been running for more than a week with little likelihood of being able to stop to poach whales.

SSA Chairman Bob Brown, for the first time, was in high spirits and satisfied with the support of the Federal Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt. Brown said Hunt has been contacting the Japanese authorities over the impending invasion of the Australian Whale Sanctuary, which includes the EEZ, by the harpoon ship.

“Once again Sea Shepherd has seen the Japanese whaling fleet’s tactics thwarted. But we are mindful that the fleet is publicly committed to killing another 931 Minke Whales as well as 50 Fin Whales and 50 Humpbacks,” Brown said.

Anti-Sarawak dam rallies held in Australia, Malaysia

Anti-Sarawak dam rallies held in Australia, Malaysia
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Sep 27, 2013

Separate rallies are taking place in Australia and Malaysia in a collective effort to pressure the Malaysian government to stop the construction of 12 mega-dams that are underway in Sarawak.

In Malaysia, anti-dam protesters demonstrated outside Kuala Lumpur Parliament building on Thursday. They held signs against the Murum Dam and Baram Dam and called on the Malaysian government to respect indigenous peoples’ demands for a fair settlement of their rights.

Anti-dam protesters carry banners in Kuala Lumpur. (Photo: Bruno Manser Fund)

In Murum, Sarawak, over 100 Penan leaders staged a blockade to stop the flow of traffic to the dam site on the same day. Their aim was to get the attention of the Malaysian government and the state owned-power company, Sarawak Energy,  and pressure them to stop the mega-dam projects.

The protesters hope they got the message across: Respect indigenous and human rights and provide appropriate compensation for the loss of their lands and homes.

Carrying signs, and food and bedding, they have taken over the only road to and from the dam site and are not allowing any traffic through.

Brihannala Morgan, director of the Borneo Project, said in a press statement that this dam, one of 12 mega dams planned across the region, will drown over 2,750 sq km of forest and traditionally owned land.

This is the second blockade that the Penan people of the Murum area have erected. The first blockade was in September 2012 when the Penan of Long Wat village held a blockade that delayed construction of the dam for over a month.

Sarawak Energy promised the Penan compensation and prime land for relocation, but failed to deliver on its promises. Instead, they are relocating the Penan to swampy areas that are unable to support their traditional agricultural practices and way of life.

Just before impoundment began earlier this month, the longhouse of Long Wat village was burned by Sarawak Energy workers. Details are still forthcoming, yet it appears that this case of arson was committed without the prior knowledge of the villagers.

“The world needs to stand up and take action against such rampant abuse of power,” said Morgan, adding, “The plight of the Penan is a fundamental example of corporate greed steamrolling human rights.”

According to SAVE-Rivers, the statewide network of anti-dam activists, the Penan are demanding RM 50,000 per family (about US $15,500), as well as 25 hectares of land, a 10 per cent share in the profits from the Murum Dam, as well as full compensation for their lost land and resources.

The Murum Dam is one of 12 mega dams slated to be built in Malaysian Borneo by 2020. The dam will produce 944 MW of energy, energy that currently has no purchasers or identified demand. On-the-ground efforts, such as SAVE-Rivers, work to coordinate indigenous-led resistance against dam expansion and massive resettlement.

Protest held in Hobart

A rally held at Hydro Tasmania head office in Hobart. (Photo: Sarawak Report)

The Huon Valley Environment Centre (HVEC) hosted a separate protest at the at Hydro Tasmania head office in a show solidarity with the indigenous people of Murum, Sarawak.
Jenny Weber, spokeswoman of the HVEC, said Sarawak faces the dire consequences in light of the government’s failure to uphold human rights.

“Flooding of Murum Dam begun last Saturday, while six out of seven villages remain in the region, and more than 100 Penan people blockade at the Murum dam site,” she said.
Australia-owned Hydro Tasmania is implicated in the human and environmental violations by assisting Sarawak Energy.

The dam project in the area is reported to have caused flooding on the lands of indigenous peoples at Murum, although most of the affected villagers have not been resettled and their demands not addressed.

Weber also implicated Sarawak Energy workers as the suspected arsonist in a Penan village. “We have been informed that one Penan village was burnt down in a case of suspected arson by Sarawak Energy workers.” Other allegations include communities reporting the loss of fishing boats due to the impoundment. An estimated 1500 Penan and 80 Kenyah natives will lose their homes due to the Murum dam impoundment,  Weber said.

“The construction of Murum dam would not have been possible without support from Western engineers and managers. Hydro Tasmania, have staff secondments in Sarawak, including engineer Andrew Pattle who directed the Murum dam construction. Hydro Tasmania is responsible for the displacement of indigenous peoples from their traditional lands. We condemn Hydro Tasmania, as they continue to assist human rights violations and environmentally destructive practices in Sarawak,” Weber said.

“We are asking Hydro Tasmania and our Tasmanian Government to stop supporting the Sarawak government in their oppression of indigenous people in Sarawak, stop implicating our state in this humanitarian crisis.  As long as Tasmania assists the Sarawak regime they are culpable for assisting the Sarawak government’s human rights violations.  People of Murum, Sarawak and International NGOs are calling for urgent intervention and an immediate stop of the Murum dam impoundment,” Weber said.

Former Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown addresses conference delegates in Sarawak earlier this year.

Former Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown flew to Kuching, the capital of the Malaysian state of Sarawak,  earlier this year to give his backing to a large group of local communities opposing the controversial mega dam projects in the region.

Australia: New gov’t will be disastrous for environment, warns expert | Asian Correspondent

Australia: New gov’t will be disastrous for environment, warns expert | Asian Correspondent
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon Sep 09, 2013


A day after Tony Abbott was elected as the new Prime Minister of Australia, conservation groups are already worrying about the future of environmental protection and sustainability in the country.

Under the new “management”, a term used by Abbott in his acceptance speech at the Four Seasons Hotel in Sydney, his government will put environmental issues on the back burner to get the business back on track.

Tony Abbott (top) won the 2013 federal election to become Australia's 28th prime minister beating Kevin Rudd who conceded defeat on Sept. 7.

Abbott won Saturday’s Federal Election to become Australia’s 28^th prime minister, beating Kevin Rudd in an overwhelming victory.

In a reaction to his election, however, Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe from the School of Science, Griffith University said Australia’s newly elected government will be disastrous for the environment. He finds the Coalition Government’s policies on environment to be depressing, The Conversation reports.

Under the Liberal Party’s plan, Abbott will seek to abolish the carbon tax immediately, which he considers toxic and destructive for Australian businesses. The new PM also vowed to suspend the operation of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
Citing New South Wales as an example of bad business affected by carbon tax, Premiere Barry O’Farrell has made it clear that the state’s black coal-fired power stations will suffer a loss in value of at least $5 billion because of the carbon tax.

Abbott will also abolish the mining tax which he claims undermines investor confidence in Australia as an investment destination and as a secure “supplier of resources.” By scrapping the tax, the Coalition aims to “restore confidence, stability and security for the industry, allowing it to thrive, create jobs and contribute to the prosperity of all Australians.”

Green groups have been alarmed at the Coalition’s plan to implement a One-Stop-Shop Environmental Approvals Process. The process will cut green tape and will fast-track approvals of new mining and other projects. Once it gives  green light to the petition lodged by the Business Council of Australia, the Coalition will offer State and Territory governments the opportunity to act as a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals. The States and Territories would then administer a single approvals process including approvals under Commonwealth legislation such as the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Environment Defenders Office has already released a report that finds the One-Stop-Shop a process to streamline the process of environmental destruction. Read related article here.

Environmental groups lament the failure of Regional Forestry Agreements. (Photo: MyEnvironment)

Lowe said Abbott’s  proposal will turn the clock back 30 years on environmental protection.
“Since the Hawke government blocked the proposed Franklin Dam, successive governments – ALP and Coalition – have curbed the worst excesses of growth-oriented states, which are prepared to approve irresponsible developments. Even our National Parks are no longer safe,” he said.

Other plans in the Coalition pipeline include a go for mineral exploration activities; agricultural land exploration for seam coal gas; approval of uranium exports to India; examination of the potential of thorium as an energy source for export; and a review of the former government’s White Paper on energy and resources, among other things.
Relevant links to the new government’s policies are here, including resources and energy plans.