Dumped and stateless on Manus Island

Lone Manu Island asylum seeker, Aladdin Sisalem. Photo courtesy of Olivia Rousset

Related:

Olivia Rousset, SBS Dateline: “There’s someone who for seven months has been alone and has had two visitors in that time and is slowly going mad from that experience. Do you feel sorry for him as a refugee who’s tried for two years to get asylum in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia and has found himself in this detention centre all alone not knowing what’s going on?”

Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Immigration: “With respect, I might have some different information from that what you have, and no, I cannot say I have any sorry for Mr Sisalem’s position.”

Rousset: “You don’t feel sorry for a stateless refugee?

Vanstone: “You’ve just asked me a question and I’ve answered it.”

Asylum seekers were all over the media a few years ago. And then, almost as suddenly as David Marr and Marian Wilkinson’s expose of the Tampa incident, Dark Victory, disappeared from the national agenda, refugees were rarely featured in our papers or on our screens.

At the Australian Independent Documentary Conference in February 2004, leading human rights lawyer Julian Burnside explained how Australia was committing crimes against humanity, “when judged by our own laws.” Didn’t read about this? It’s unsurprising, as Burnside explained:

“I first came across this analysis earlier in the year and I made these observations at a speech in Melbourne on World Refugee Day. Someone from The Age newspaper was present and asked me for a copy of the analysis. I spoke of other things as well, but they asked for a copy of the analysis of Section 268.12 just to make sure I wasn’t taking a lend of them. I sent it through and you can see it’s very simple and it can be compressed onto less than an A4 sheet. I didn’t see anything about it in the newspaper the next day. A couple of days later I got a phone call from this journalist, rather shame-faced he seemed, and he apologised that he hadn’t used the material but explained his editor did not think it was interesting. It is not interesting that our most senior political leaders are engaged in a crime against humanity when judged by our own laws. How do we ever get to that position, I wonder?”

You may have heard about Aladdin Sisalem. He, better than any, highlights the absurdity, criminality and indecency of our government’s policy. He is the only person detained on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, caught between Australian governmental intransigence, populist posturing and outright bloody-mindedness. “I’m really in need for the help to be, immediately, removed from here and resettled in a third, safe country,” Aladdin told me this week. “I need to belong to a country that can protect me and where I can live a normal, dignified and productive life.”

His personal background reads like a classic refugee story. He was born in Kuwait in 1979 to a Palestinian father and Egyptian mother. During the first Gulf War in 1991, Palestinians living in Kuwait were accused of siding with Saddam, and subsequently persecuted and humiliated. (This situation was primarily due to Yasser Arafat meeting with Saddam and expressing support for his regime.) Life became unbearable in Kuwait and after failing to gain refugee status in Egypt, Aladdin decided to try his luck on the other side of the world. After arriving in Jakarta on a forged tourist visa (and living on the streets for nine months) and being refused refugee rights by the UNHCR, he trekked through dense jungle to Papua New Guinea. They also refused Aladdin his entitled rights, placed him in jail and allegedly beat him badly. By December 2002, he had taken a small boat to Australia, landing on Thursday Island, “to seek asylum [and] avoid losing my life or even my future.” Expecting his nightmare to end, instead the Howard Government was fully enforcing their draconian Pacific Solution and he was soon flown back to PNG and placed in the newly erected Manus Island detention centre. He was not alone, however, with around 150 other asylum seekers living in the camp.

Aladdin thought his case for asylum was being processed by Australian immigration officials but was soon informed of his predicament. “They claimed I did not ask specifically for an application form by name and number”, says Aladdin, “while I did repeatedly verbally request asylum in Australia.” He has been living alone for the past seven months. Positively Kafkaesque is the only way to describe his situation. The UNHCR has since confirmed Aladdin’s refugee status but the Minister for Immigration, Amanda Vanstone, says Australia has no responsibilities to bring him to the mainland for resettlement. “The last person there is not an asylum seeker, he’s been granted refugee status by the UN, and is not the responsibility of the Australian government”, she says. It is now becoming clear why John Howard appointed Vanstone to replace Phillip Ruddock in the Immigration portfolio. Both are inflexible, harsh, illogical and bureaucratic to a fault.

Remarkably, however, Aladdin has been housed in a refugee centre for 15 months with internet access, a gym and a cat for company called Honey. His mental state is diminishing due to his loneliness and lack of a clear future. Indeed, Olivia Rousset from SBS Dateline is only the second person to visit Aladdin in seven months. Rousset’s story contained more humanity and depth than virtually all the print and TV coverage of the last six months. And all for one simple reason: she was there, seeing the situation with her own eyes. While some media outlets have covered this story, it is shameful that virtually none have deemed it important to send a reporter to accurately document the actions of our government. Media access was difficult at one stage, but PNG allowed Rousset with few conditions. Have any other journalists even tried?

Aside from the gross human rights abuse being committed, is it not essential to document the $1.4 million of taxpayer’s money to feed, house and imprison one man? There is no question that aid packages and other financial incentives exist between PNG and Australia, though Australia knows that many Pacific islands are so cash strapped that they will accept what is essentially a bribe to keep Australia’s refugee “problem” away from prying journalists and human rights groups. This is even more reason why the media should be pursuing the story. Aladdin is but one piece of the dirty little secret known as the Pacific Solution, as we currently know little about the economic details of this Howard Government policy. It is imperative that enquiring minds are employed to investigate what Amanda Vanstone calls “the most effective deterrent to people smugglers that we have been able to find.” Clearly, humanity doesn’t enter the equation.

***

“The day in my life I would like to mention”, Aladdin said this week, “is the day when I arrived in Australian Thursday Island, where I, for the first time since my childhood, felt the meaning of the safety that I was close to forget because of years of fear and suffering. It was the day when I thought it was the end of my nightmare. Unfortunately, I was wrong and this day was the beginning of the suffering that I never imagined before.”

The mainstream media has certainly highlighted Aladdin’s plight. The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, 7.30 Report, West Australian, The Sunday Telegraph, The Australian and Channel 7 are just some of the organisations that have covered the absurdity of Manus Island. But it took the UK Guardian‘s journalist, David Fickling, to offer this assessment of the situation on February 12, 2004: “The amount of money spent keeping Manus Island open would pay unemployment benefits for all of the detainees in Manus, Nauru and Port Hedland, if they were allowed into Australia.” Fickling was unafraid to highlight the real reason why PNG continues to allow Manus to remain open – “promised aid”. Why is this real relationship so difficult for much of the mainstream media to place in context?

The Pacific Solution strikes at the heart of our democracy. With generous financial offers, Australia has essentially bought many struggling Pacific islands, many of which, including Nauru, have been pillaged in years past by Australia. The essential buying of our poor neighbours diminishes our reputation in the region. When countries become fearful and reliant on Australian handouts, respect and admiration will never be achieved.

Shadow Minister for Immigration, Stephen Smith, has made some encouraging signs that the Labor Party would abolish both the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres. Though it should be noted that many aspects of the ALP’s refugee policy are as draconian as the Liberals, such as the desire to constantly talk about notions of “border protection.” It is supposedly now politically expedient for both major parties to talk about such issues in the language of oppression. Our coastline needs to be monitored, to be sure, but it is important to keep in mind that even before Howard’s “deterrent” measures, no more than 4000 unauthorised arrivals ever landed on our shores, most of whom were escaping despotism in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does the ALP know something we don’t? And are they suggesting that a massive influx of asylum seekers would suddenly appear over the horizon if policy were loosened? Getting tough on the major issues of the day, including refugees and terrorism, may give Mark Latham some much needed political capital (and theoretically neutralise the Liberal’s “strengths” on national security), but it fundamentally undercuts his desire for a more inclusive community. And why can’t we ask this question: why do we want to deter people from coming to Australia in the first place? Who is really threatened by a few thousand people coming from lands our noble country has “liberated” since 2001?

ALP refugee policy, decided at their January national conference, may be an improvement on Kim Beazley’s gutlessness at the 2001 election (when he caved into Howard’s draconian measures), but no ALP spokesperson can say with an ounce of honesty that many of the proposals they will be taking to this year’s federal election are anything other than watered down Howard policy. I wait for the day when the ALP adopts Julian Burnside’s proposal of “initial mandatory detention for no longer than one month.” Barring health or security risks, the person would be released into the community, given an interim visa, “permitting the holder to work and to be eligible for all relevant benefits.” When was the last time you read serious discussion about nuts and bolts refugee policy in our mainstream media? Rather, it’s frequently framed around an official position of the major political parties, rather than a larger, above politics, debate.

As the ALP’s new progressive President, Carmen Lawrence has a long way to go to convince those wavering voters, many who moved to vote Green in 2001, that her party has really the fate of refugees in mind, rather than party political gain. Pledging to take children out of detention and abolish the Pacific Solution are two welcome changes, however, and should be applauded. But what else can you offer, Latham?

***

“As the UNHCR is always informing me, I do not have the right to choose which country I would like to live in”, says Aladdin, “but as most of the refugees were taken by New Zealand, I really wish to live in that country.” (The Age‘s Michael Gordon reported last week on the happy outcome for some Tampa refugees in NZ.) “I am fit and healthy and have a good trade as a very experienced car mechanic”, continues Aladdin. “I can read, write and speak English. I would work hard in my trade and be a productive member in a good society.” All Australians should receive Aladdin’s cries for decency and fairness with shock. Senator Vanstone can, and has, made humanitarian exceptions in exceptional refugee cases. In November 2003, the minister granted a visa to Ebrahim Sammaki, giving his wife’s death in the Bali bombings as reason enough. John Howard, however, couldn’t resist a grotesque media opportunity and was shown holding hands with the hands of the couple’s children. Aladdin Sisalem should be another such exception.

Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph wrote on February 15 that with the cost the Australian taxpayer is paying for Aladdin’s daily upkeep, “Sydney’s Park Hyatt said for $7000 a night it could make available its Diplomatic suite with a security guide on the door. The 145 sqm luxury hotel apartment boasts four private balconies and a marble bathroom. With a touch of a remote-control button, guests can open the curtains and enjoy from the king-sized bed panoramic views of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House.”

Aladdin’s lawyer, Eric Vadarlis told Olivia Rousset: “I think we need to go back a step and figure out how Aladdin got there [to Manus Island]. Aladdin didn’t buy a ticket to Manus Island – he was taken there by the Australian government. Specifically taken and dumped there. So whose problem is he? So is the Australian government into the slave trade? Do they pick people up and take them to Manus Island and leave them there and say they are someone else’s problem?” At this stage, it appears Minister Vanstone is saying exactly that – not our problem.

WebDiary Archive

Dumped and stateless on Manus Island

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Archive of Margo Kingston's WebDiary from the Sydney Morning Herald