sri lankan politics

Contrary to claims, asylum seekers from Australia returning to Sri Lanka may not have a safe passage

The Sri Lankan government has made little progress in providing accountability for wartime abuses.

In his recent visit to Australia, the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Ranil Wickremesinghe, urged Sri Lankan asylum seekers to “come back, all is forgiven”. He went on to say: “They can come back to Sri Lanka and we will help them.”

Immigration department figures show as of January, there were 86 Sri Lankan adult men in detention facilities in Australia. In community detention, there are 24 adult men, 19 women, 28 boys and 15 girls from Sri Lanka.

Every one of these people are still undergoing the refugee determination process. This means there is still a risk they may be sent back to their home country if found not to be “genuine refugees”.

Last year, the Australian government controversially sent back a boat carrying 12 Sri Lankan asylum seekers. Wickremesinghe’s reassurances echo those of Tony Abbott some years ago.

The former Abbott government consistently deemed it safe to return Sri Lankan nationals to the country, saying the civil war had ended and the country was “at peace”.

In 2014, one boat of 153 Tamil asylum seekers were intercepted at sea by Australian customs vessels and returned to Sri Lanka. Another boat carrying 28 Sri Lankan nationals were handed over to Sri Lankan authorities.

The Australian government is aware that returning people to a country where they face harm is in breach of international law and the UN Refugee Convention, to which it is a signatory.

There is mounting evidence suggesting that, during Abbott’s tenure, asylum seekers returning to Sri Lanka faced torture. There is little reason to believe much has changed since.

What’s happening in Sri Lanka?

In January 2015, Sri Lanka had a leadership change. This was generally viewed as positive for the country: a new beginning in a post-armed conflict setting.

However, things quickly turned when the new leadership showed little signs of making meaningful improvements to its transitional justice agenda. This included changing the country’s laws regarding returned asylum seekers or even considering this a priority.

When asked whether it was safe for asylum seekers to return to Sri Lanka, Wickremesinghe responded: “We just started a missing persons office. It is quite safe for them to come back.”

This office was established last year to investigate the disappearance of people – mainly Tamils – during the decades of fighting between the Sri Lankan government and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam that ended in 2009.

The outcomes of the Office of Missing Persons are questionable. There have been 20,000 cases of missing persons recorded, while not a single person listed as missing has been traced since the new government took office. Families of those missing continue to hold demonstrations to seek answers about their loved ones.

Emerging evidence challenges reconciliation efforts with the Tamil minority community and strongly argues against returning asylum seekers to Sri Lanka – in striking contrast to the views of the Australian government.

Human rights abuses

In December, an official UN report on Sri Lanka showed evidence of male and female torture. This was from various periods during and after the conflict, as well as recent cases in 2015 and 2016. Medical examinations of survivors confirmed physical injuries that were consistent with their interviews.

The report highlights evidence of sexual and gender-based violence and extensive surveillance for anyone deemed to have had any links to the LTTE. It also identified the continued presence of “white van abductions”. This was a method by which gangs linked to the Sri Lankan government military abducted and silenced people suspected of opposing the dominant views of government.

The majority of white van abductions occur in Tamil-occupied areas of the north and east of Sri Lanka.

The issue of torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of punishment is part of the legacy of the country’s armed conflict. It is one reason why Sri Lankan citizens continue to live without minimal guarantees of protection against the power of the state, in particular security forces.

They can’t go back

In 2014, the CEO of the Refugee Council of Australia, Paul Power, raised concerns about returning asylum seekers to Sri Lanka. He said the country had a “long history of political violence on a scale unimaginable to Australians”.

It is not surprising Sri Lankans fleeing persecution continue to come to Australia seven years after the war. Approximately 250,000 Tamil people fled during the final stages of the conflict in 2009.

The United Nations says around 40,000 mainly Tamil civilians were killed in this period. Those who survived became displaced in refugee camps under deteriorating humanitarian conditions. Many others risked their lives in boats, spending weeks in the ocean in search for a better life in countries such as Australia.

In its 2015 annual report, Human Rights Watch said:

The Sri Lankan government has made little progress in providing accountability for wartime abuses.

The report also identified that government obligations to address the human rights concerns of the Tamil minority population remain largely unfulfilled. And those who have returned faced indefinite imprisonment. Under these circumstances, the plight of asylum seekers returning to Sri Lanka appears to be anything but safe.

The Australian and Sri Lankan governments uphold that many asylum seekers from Sri Lanka are not fleeing persecution, and instead arrive as economic migrants.

This political rhetoric continues putting asylum seekers at risk and allows Australians to prioritise ignorance over confrontation.

Niro Kandasamy, PhD Candidate, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne.

This article first appeared on The Conversation.`

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.