Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Despite the worsening security environment in Afghanistan, last month, the Australian Government announced the signing of an agreement that will facilitate both forcible and voluntary returns of Afghan asylum seekers who are found not to be refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
[22 February 2011] - Every few weeks a new boat carrying asylum seekers reaches the shores of Christmas Island. Many of these boats are full of Afghan men, women, and children who have risked their lives for the slightest chance that they might be able to seek refuge in Australia. The war weary Afghans come from various places. Many come from provinces in Afghanistan, where last year, more than 2400 civilians were killed as a result of the conflict, more than 2000 of them by attacks by the Taliban and other armed opposition groups, according to the UN. Other Afghan asylum seekers continue their perpetual journeys of displacement as they pack up lives in Iran and Pakistan because the governments there have increasingly become more hostile towards them. Despite the worsening security environment in Afghanistan, last month, the Australian Government announced the signing of an agreement that will facilitate both forcible and voluntary returns of Afghan asylum seekers who are found not to be refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The tripartite Memorandum of Understanding signed between the governments of Australia and Afghanistan, and UNHCR, fails to acknowledge the deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan and the real security risks that the returnees would face. According to the Afghanistan NGO Security Office, a non-profit organisation that advises nongovernmental organisations on safety conditions in Afghanistan, in 2010 there were more than 12,000 attacks by armed opposition groups throughout Afghanistan. That is roughly 33 attacks every single day of the year. In comparison, in 2009 there were about 12 attacks every day and fewer in 2008. These attacks include ambushes, abductions, suicide bombings, and rocket attacks; all of which kill and injure thousands of innocent Afghans every year. Afghan and international security forces are also involved in numerous incidents jeopardising the lives and livelihoods of Afghans, despite recent efforts to improve their conduct. The central province of Ghazni, where many of the Afghans seeking asylum in Australia are originally from, had the most attacks by armed opposition groups in 2010. There were 1540 attacks in Ghazni, a 234 per cent increase over 2009. This figure shows that Ghazni experienced even more attacks than some provinces in southern and eastern Afghanistan, which are widely considered to be the most dangerous in the country. Such violence has halted and even reversed much of the progress made since Afghanistan’s reconstruction began in late 2001. Schools and health clinics have shut down in many rural areas where communities have been threatened by the Taliban to stop supporting the Afghan Government and not use governmental services. UNHCR recently reported that between June 2009 and September 2010, 120,000 people were forced to flee their homes as a result of the armed conflict, bringing the total number of internally displaced Afghans to 319,000. Afghans who are returned to these conditions are in danger of facing serious human rights abuses, including violence. The Afghan Government, as well as UNHCR, lacks the capacity to monitor the safety of individuals that the Australian Government is seeking to return. The Australian Government can’t rely on the Afghan National Police to provide protection for the returnees. Police protection is very limited outside of the urban centres and where there are police they are often notorious for corrupt and abusive practices. In parts of the country the police are seen as a greater source of insecurity than the Taliban, undermining the authority and legitimacy of the central government. Amnesty International’s research has found that some police officials are linked to criminal gangs and are involved in violent crime, such as kidnapping and armed robberies. Also of major concern are the provisions within the agreement for the return of unaccompanied minors to Afghanistan, where, in reality, there are no social services available to this vulnerable group. In many cases reuniting these children with their families is simply not possible because whole family groups have fled to neighbouring countries. In some cases asylum seekers have spent significant time as refugees in neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan or Iran, before coming to Australia. Consequently, such individuals often lack the necessary family and tribal links to make returns viable. In December 2010 UNHCR released new guidelines for assessing the eligibility of Afghans seeking asylum. The guidelines stated that in 2010 “conflict-related violence reached such high levels in certain parts of Afghanistan that a situation of generalized violence could be said to exist.” Furthermore the armed conflict has particularly intensified in the southern region and has even expanded into western and northern Afghanistan, regions previously considered relatively stable. Additionally, last month a top UNHCR official criticised some European countries for denying protection for people fleeing the indiscriminate effect of generalised violence in countries like Afghanistan. The UNHCR official said that some European countries were getting lost in discussions about legal concepts and that their approach to asylum seekers “often defies common sense.” The same could be said about the tripartite Memorandum of Understanding signed between the governments of Australia and Afghanistan, and UNHCR. The Australian Government has a legal obligation not to return any individual to a place where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Given Afghanistan’s steadily deteriorating security conditions, if anything, the Australian government, Afghanistan, and UNHCR should be considering how they can offer protection to more Afghans, not looking for ways to turn around the few Afghans whose lifeline could be the safety of Australian shores. Further information