.png)
By Lauren Turk
Editor: Ozain Ali, Audrey Miu
The opinions expressed in this article reflect the opinions of its author(s). They do not represent the views of the UCL International Relations Society, Circum Mundum, or its Editorial Team.
Australia’s offshore policy, initiated as part of the 2001 Pacific Solution, has been broadly criticised for its inhumane treatment and detention of asylum seekers in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, yet countries across the West still try to replicate this model. Both the UK and Italy have recently attempted to introduce similar policies, and each faced legal problems, raising the question: why have states chosen to replicate such a legally ambiguous policy?
The roots of the policy
In Australia, the rejection of the unauthorised maritime arrival of asylum seekers has consistently been a matter of political consensus, with both the Liberal and Labor Parties introducing offshore policies. This can partly be attributed to Australia’s geographical position as an island, leading to some perceiving the maritime arrival of asylum seekers as an ‘invasion’, correlating immigration with national security.
Following the Tampa incident in August 2001, when Howard’s government refused a boat carrying over 400 rescued refugees permission to land on Australian land, border securitisation has dominated both media and political discourse--a matter only exacerbated by the proximity of the incident to 9/11. However, this does little to justify the use of offshore processing in Australia, where, in the Nauru facility, there were 63 suicide attempts, and incidents of violence and sexual abuse were common. The policy also faced legal ramifications, persistently condemned by the UNHCR. With the actual reduction in maritime arrivals being debatable, it seems this policy was more symbolic than practical, especially as some reports stated it would cost less to process asylum seekers onshore.
How has offshore processing become normalised across Europe?
It is clear that European countries have been encumbered by far-right European populism, which often employs negative rhetoric regarding asylum seekers and immigrants, portraying them as a common ‘enemy’: Reform, and previously UKIP, challenged the dominance of the two-party system in the UK, and the Brothers of Italy (Fratelli D’Italia) have risen to power under Meloni. This has been exacerbated by an increase in immigration numbers compounded by increased economic inequality across Europe, precipitating a rise in anti-immigrant discourse where immigrants have been blamed for people feeling poorer.
As the issue of immigration becomes more significant across the West, it is unsurprising that desperate political leaders would attempt to recreate the Australian policy, removing asylum seekers ‘temporarily’ for processing to a third party country to amass support from an increasingly anti-immigrant electorate. This is evident in Italy, with Meloni’s attempts to introduce offshore processing in Albania, and the Conservative’s Rwanda scheme, which has since been repealed by the incumbent Labour government.
Broader implications of the policy
Whilst both countries pushed the idea that these third party countries are safe, legal ambiguities remain regarding the principle of ‘non-refoulment’ from the 1956 Refugee Convention. There is the potential to create a ‘return-orientated environment’, where the use of countries with insufficient asylum systems poses a risk of ‘chain-refoulment’. Although Australia seemed able to transcend this international law, the UK’s deal suffered significant legal barriers, and Italy faces ongoing legal challenges from domestic courts and the ECJ.
Furthermore, the US has also recently introduced offshore processing of migrants in Guantanamo Bay, where it has faced allegations of inhumane treatment, drawing criticism from courts and immigrant rights groups. Whilst these migrants have since been removed, the White House continues to defend the policy by highlighting their criminal records, so it appears that the ‘trend’ of offshore processing is unlikely to slow down as its expansion may be reinforced by this momentum.
Ultimately, what is most disturbing about the spread of offshore processing is its capacity to erode landmark international law, establishing precedents that prioritise ‘border security’ over human rights, and where political leaders can use offshore processing to obtain electoral success rather than addressing the roots of the issue.
Commentaires