Sri Lankans’ Rights to Seek Asylum in Australia

| by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

(October 13, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I respond to Dr. Noel Nadesan’s article ‘Australia’s positive role in Sri Lanka’ published in Sri Lanka Guardian.

(Photo: Jacky Ghossein - Photo Courtesy from smh.com.au )

In essence, Dr. Nadesan rejects Mr. Dowd’s condemnation of the ‘attitude’ shown towards LTTE’s ex-combatants. Dr. Nadesan says ‘John Dowd, President of the International Commission of Jurists in Australia and former New South Wales attorney-general, has condemned the program of rehabilitation of former LTTE cadres as ”re-education, not rehabilitation”. I don’t see the difference because re-education is a part of rehabilitation. It is the norm in any post-war situation for captured or surrendered armed combatants to be debriefed, re-educated and rehabilitated. These processes are interlinked. So what is wrong in Sri Lanka re-educating the Liberation Tiger cadres’

I identify more with Mr. John Dowd’s attitude towards the ex-combatants than Dr. Nadesan’s. One common aspect that Mr. Dowd and I seem to share is our rejection of former Prime Minister Mr. John Howard’s attitude towards migrants from Asia. As Dr. Nadesan might recall, when Mr. Howard was Prime Minister of Australia, I took Mr. Howard to Court to register my condemnation of his ‘attitude’ towards Asian Migrants. I had, as per my assessment, legitimate claims to do so on the basis of Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which helps us give legal form to our pain on the basis of our belief and/or on the basis of objectively measurable merit. The latter would help all in similar situation irrespective of whether or not we/they believe. This merit basis is needed for material growth and belief is needed for spiritual sharing. So long as my actions were based on belief – they are valid in the Courts presided by other believers – in this instance other believers in Racial Equality. There were many Australians (including Judges) who ‘rejected’ my description of my pain and loss – the same way Dr. Nadesan is rejecting Mr. Dowd’s. They thus rejected my independent right to describe my pain.

Looking at the matter on merit basis – given that Mr. Dowd’s investment in International Laws in relation to Human Rights is high, it is highly likely that he would already have formed in his mind, the ‘right’ kind of conduct to be expected from all those who hold official positions. Others who do not invest through those broader principles are not likely to have formed such expectations through which they allocate ‘rights and wrongs’. To me Dr. Nadesan is taking a ‘family’ approach, whilst Mr. Dowd is taking a ‘society’ approach. The closer we work through principles that cover ‘society’ the higher the level at which our family merges with society. It is the duty of every head of family to raise her/his family to the highest standards possible – so the investments made by all at that level and below would work naturally for them. That level of society and below then becomes our ‘family’.

Tamil leaders such as Dr. Nadesan and I need to do this with our Community.

‘The age’ reports on this matter: ‘In a move condemned by a leading international law advocate, Australia's high commissioner to Sri Lanka, Kathy Klugman, took part in a ceremony in Colombo on Friday to release about 1800 Tamils after what the military called ''a two-year rehabilitation program''. But John Dowd - president of the International Commission of Jurists in Australia and former New South Wales attorney-general - condemned the program in the camps as ''re-education, not rehabilitation''.

He warned that Australia was lending legitimacy to a regime that refuses to allow an investigation of alleged war crimes during the country's vicious civil war.

More than 11,000 people surrendered in the dying days of the conflict that ended in May 2009 and had been held without charge in at least 24 military-run camps. Ms Klugman - who last month congratulated the ''effectiveness'' of Sri Lanka's security services for stopping a boat carrying 44 Tamils fleeing to Australia - was one of a number of foreign envoys, including from the US, at the ceremony. Local media reported she handed out certificates for skills training offered in the camps to the Tamils in areas such as carpentry and agriculture.

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa said those released, reported as the last of those in detention, were rehabilitated according to international standards. ''We have made you a person worthwhile to society,'' he told them.

Mr. Rajapaksa relied not on ‘International Standards and Systems’ to defeat the LTTE but his own thinking which may have included his belief. Mr. Rajapaksa’s move to remove International Observers from the scene confirmed his lack of confidence in the Observers and he may have believed that that was the ‘right’ way for Sri Lanka. If so, President Rajapaksa ought to have used the words ‘Sri Lankan standards’ instead of ‘International standards’. By giving out the certificates, Australian High Commissioner Ms Kathy Klugman effectively endorsed the use of ‘International standards’ – as if the High Commissioner personified those standards and therefore her company at the Presidential level gave ‘international flavor’ to the certificates and the statements made by the Government of Sri Lanka.

To my mind, this warrants objections from all Australians who have invested in Global Principles of managing Multicultural societies. Given that I am a high investor in this area – I am able to identify with the condemnation by Mr. Dowd. When we invest through wider laws and principles, they benefit more people than when we invest through ‘local laws and principles or worse likes and dislikes of those physically close to us’. Unless we recognize our own real status as the starting point/foundation – our projections and certifications would be ‘maya’ / delusion – mere book knowledge good for ‘grades’ and/or hearsay good to imagine we are good.

We Australians are now working to resolve the Boat Refugee problem. ‘The age’ reports : ‘AUSTRALIA has lauded a crackdown by the Sri Lankan navy that stopped a boat carrying 44 people fleeing the strife-torn country to Australia, prompting a sharp rebuke from human rights advocates.

Australia's high commissioner in Colombo, Kathy Klugman, issued a statement praising the Sri Lankan police and navy for picking up the boat in rough seas on Sunday as it set out on the perilous 5500 kilometre journey.’

West Australian MP the Hon Tony Crook who currently holds the Balance of Power in Parliament in relation to this issue, is reported to have told ‘ the West Australian newspaper that although sending asylum seekers to Malaysia may stop the boats, he is uncomfortable about the prospect of sending unaccompanied children to uncertain futures in Kuala Lumpur.’

This is further confirmation that Australians are equally divided on this issue. High Commissioner Ms Klugman has/d the responsibility to uphold the essence of our ‘total’ values as per her position and not as her personal beliefs, unless such beliefs result from committed practice of Global laws and principles on this issue and / or Ms Klugman has had the experience as a victim of war claiming refuge in another country.

All refugee claimants seeking to come to Australia, are entitled to be judged through the Global Laws and Principles on this issue. Our application of these laws and principles would vary as per own interpretations. There is a big area that is covered by belief in terms of refugees. Like with my application to the Australian Courts against Mr. Howard, these refugees may be rejected by Australian authorities, but Australian authorities do not have the right to block them from applying. If Sri Lankan authorities took action as per Sri Lankan laws – that was fine. There are more of us providing humanitarian service of International standards, according to Global principles, who could do with active support from our High Commission and its official status.

Those who are genuinely Australians and genuinely Sri Lankans would bring about the best and most natural merger of the two countries. The High Commissioner needs to seek, find and endorse herself through such mergers. Dr. Nadesan says ‘If Dowd is serious about denying legitimacy to the Sri Lankan government the answer is not to boycott functions that have a positive ring to it but to demand that all diplomatic ties, sporting events and trade be cut off forthwith.’

The parallel of that as applicable to Sri Lanka is to state that all Tamils are Tigers or that all boat people are genuine refugees. To most White Australians, Tamils are Tigers. To most Australian authorities their social assessment that I was/am Indian/Sri Lankan (as per their physical observation of my Indian looks combined with their knowledge that I was born in Sri Lanka) was also their official/legal description of me. They did not appreciate that the legal description was important to me due to my investment in the laws of my environment nor that I was truly Australian. The legal description would have strengthened their investment in the legal system. Overriding the legal description would have weakened their investment in the legal system – but to the extent they received social rewards / certificates – they would not have known that they had lost status at the global level.

Similarly, when assessing refugee applicants we Australians are likely to make many mistakes. But that is for the authorities responsible and it is inappropriate for others with different responsibilities to directly influence them with such judgments as Ms Klugman expressed. Even those with highest levels of education often are not able to express why they have the pain they have. Those responsible for upholding the laws of our country need to ensure that they do not express their personal likes and dislikes through their positions – for that could affect the assessments of rights and wrongs by officers who are influenced by hearsay from their social leaders. Australian officers have the duty of care to Australia to include in their assessment – Australia’s ability to service these refugees until they are able to function on their own in a multicultural environment which is very different to the environments they come from. To the extent the belief of an Australian and the belief of a Sri Lankan merge – it would be always good for both nations. This must be given priority above all else. If the Sri Lankan applicant believes as per her/his assessment but there are no believers on the side of Australia as to Australia’s natural ability to grow towards Global Consciousness the applicant would still find the forum that fits her/his belief. I did. To the extent the two sides believe ( each may express in different forms ) there is a natural merger that no one can separate. This may not be enough to fit the Global program. But both would have learnt lessons from the other to help them in their respective futures. Often such weak beliefs happen at the highest levels where the occupants tend to ‘show’ rather than be the owners of their high positions; and at the lowest levels where the participants lack the ability to express themselves through the path of merit – as in Humanitarian needs and services. The former seems to be the case with President Rajapaksa and High Commissioner Klugman.

Australia is entitled to the input of stronger believers in Australia and /or in this issue, which would then be naturally good for Sri Lanka – better than any certificate from even the Prime Minister of Australia or the Secretary General of United Nations.