The Tampa incident took place in August 2001and received a huge response worldwide. On 27 August, the Norwegian cargo ship approached Christmas Island; that was when the Australian government declined permission to go into territorial waters. The captain of the ship was told to take the rescued passengers back to Indonesia; moreover, the Prime Minister declared, that “it is in Australia’s national interest that we draw the line on what is increasingly becoming an uncontrollable number of illegal arrivals in this country” (“Interview on Radio 3AW: Prime Minister – Howard, John”, par. 1). From this point, the “Tampa crisis” started, which generally means a five-day stoppage between Australia and the crew of the ship. The crisis mentioned above marked the beginning of the new border protection policy of the country.
The regime that followed the incident was introduced quickly and in a rush, as the government of Australia knew about two more ships with refugees, even though the fate of Tampa was predetermined. Despite the fact that these actions were taken for a good purpose (to allow the government to control the flow of the refugees that arrive on Australian land), the individuals on the board of the ship were seeking help, not asking for shelter and citizenship (presumably). In conclusion, the Australian government should have established the new regime, which extends to almost all refugee camps around the world, but only after taking measures regarding Tampa, so Australia wasn’t justified for its actions.
Is it possible to enforce universal human rights accords such as the UDHR?
As any nation is committed to its citizens, the UDHR (“Universal Declaration of Human Rights”) cannot serve its purpose to protect the rights of all people. The UDHR was meant to point out that certain human rights were absolute and global. But as it appeared to be, there is no protocol or universal set of rules that are able to serve as a moral compass. Practice shows that there are too many conditions, which have a crucial impact on decision-making.
Taking the Tampa incident as an example, we clearly see what moral dilemma the Australian government was facing. Nevertheless, the majority of cases do not show the direct violation of human rights. Most often they (and Tampa is not an exception) indicate how such documents as the UDHR are not able to cover all incidents.
How much control should states have in protecting their borders from refugee flow? Whose human rights are more important? The Refugees or the citizens?
In many countries, the problem of illegal immigrants and refugees becomes more and more complex every year. While the government is willing to protect its nation and lands, lots of laws and declarations are established; not only don’t they solve the problem of illegal immigrants, but also cause a series of consequences. The answer to the problem is quite unsettling, as there are two sides: citizens and refugees. One cannot say that these two groups have unequal human rights; nevertheless, if not coordinated, refugees can become a serious threat to the economy and other aspects. So, in this case, the rights of the citizens are more important to the government. Therefore, the authorities are obliged to have full control over the problem of the refugee flow that is guided by moral principles. For example, the USA built the Wall across the border with Mexico, thus decreasing the flow of illegal immigrants. This method appears to be crude; however, it allows the government of the U.S. to control its borders and protect the nation.
Work Cited
Interview on Radio 3AW: Prime Minister – Howard, John 2001. Web.