Introduction
Although Australia’s management of the Tampa incident received a lot of criticism and accusations, the government did not waver from the chosen course of action. The shipwreck of the fishing vessel that carried asylum seekers took place in the zone where rescue was not an Australian obligation, therefore its decision to deny responsibility for the refugees was legally grounded. The introduction of the emergency “Border Protection Bill” served to further legalize the government’s actions.
Main body
From an ethical point of view, the situation is ambiguous. Refusal to take in asylum seekers resulted in increasing the span of time they had to spend in unsuitable conditions, which violated their basic human rights, thus putting Australia in a bad light in front of the international observers of the incident. On the other hand, the country was enforcing its own right to protect the citizens from the perceived danger – a justified precaution in light of numerous cases of illegal immigration and terrorist attacks.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), every person has a right to seek refuge in another country. However, enforcing this right in order to compel Australia into allowing the refugees entrance to its territory would violate the rights of Australia and be a serious breach of international law.
The right to an adequate standard of living, also known as the freedom from want, is one of the four basic human rights. The conditions aboard MV Tampa were unfit for such a large quantity of passengers, among which children and pregnant women were present. In spite of denying responsibility for refugees’ rescue, the Australian government did send some food and provided essential medical help for those who needed it. Taking further action to ensure this right would go against Australia’s lawful decision not to accept the asylum seekers into its territory.
Many opinions are voiced that placing refugees in detention centers until their status was determined constituted another violation of human rights. However, a thorough procedure was required to eliminate the risk of the asylum seekers posing a threat to the country, thus making it an issue of national security.
Every state has an obligation to first and foremost protect its citizens. The influx of refugees is a matter of serious concern and should therefore be controlled by the government. In the case under consideration, the public opinion in Australia was extremely negative toward the asylum seekers. The government’s course of action, despite being subjected to international criticism, was popular domestically.
Conclusion
Comparing the importance of refugees’ human rights and citizens’ human rights seems incorrect, as it contradicts the principle of equality. However, the need to feel safe on one’s own territory is one of the governments’ primary concerns when it comes to protecting their borders. These actions are legally right, as is evidenced by immigration laws and procedures. In Australia, the 2001 Border Protection Bill signifies the country’s determination to maintain control over who enters its territory. It is important to keep in mind that the Tampa incident was resolved with the help of an Australian navy vessel, thus reaching a compromise between ensuring the refugees’ survival and protecting the citizens’ safety. After the urgent crisis was resolved, the applicants for the refugee status were reviewed individually, in a manner that posed no threat for the country, and many applications were accepted.
Work Cited
Interview on Radio 3AW: Prime Minister – Howard, John 2001. Web.