A possible explanation as to why this one didn't make last week's operational update.Another boat (35 passengers) ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-01/asylum-seeker-boat-intercepted-north-of-darwin/5181346
This one didn't make last week's operational update.
Separately, the East Nusa Tenggara Police spokesman Adj. Sr. Comr. Okto Riwu said that two of the crews that helped the undocumented migrants enter Australia were Indonesians, who had escaped after the local police transferred them as well as other crew and passengers to Kupang, the capital of East Nusa Tenggara.
A possible explanation as to why this one didn't make last week's operational update.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-08/asylum-seekers-on-boats-turned-back-to-indonesia-speak/5191024
Our navy personal should have also confiscated any currency from the crew.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/01/08/tni-agrees-oz-policy-migrants.html
These reports are coming from people who apparently throw their ID overboard in a seeming effort to get welfare. If Aussies did that, they would probably be charged with fraud.
Why would we believe a word these people say?
Australian Defence Force personnel involved in Operation Sovereign Borders have been warned not to reveal any details of what is happening on the oceans to Australia's north, but The Australian has learned that two asylum-seeker boats were towed to Rote Island, near Indonesian West Timor, while the Indonesian crews of two, and possibly three, other vessels were persuaded to head home without being towed.
Recalling his phone conversation with Australian Defence Force chief Gen. David Hurley two weeks ago, Moeldoko said on Thursday that he had never made a statement that could be used to justify Australia’s policy.
“My statement did not indicate that I agreed [with the policy], but that I understood such tactical moves. And my reasoning was that the UN declaration says that every country has the right to protect its sovereignty. If it were my responsibility, I would have done the same thing. So, that’s the context,” he said.
Moeldoko said that he did not want to get involved in politics over the statement. “I am not talking about foreign policy. I am talking about tactical matters in the field.”
Perhaps the UNHCR should also consider the view of Indonesian Military (TNI) commander Gen. Moeldoko. He would do the same thing.I say to hell with the UNHCR...
Perhaps the UNHCR should also consider the view of Indonesian Military (TNI) commander Gen. Moeldoko. He would do the same thing.
If the UNHCR got off its ideological high horse, there might actually be less drownings at sea.
That's what the UNHCF should stick too and not encourage economic refugees to risk their lives country shopping via people smugglers.The UNHCF's high horse saves millions of lives world wide and improves millions of others most of those lives are politically powerless not an area of high activity for the religious / conservative politicians world wide.
THE Abbott government has won a mighty, if still provisional, victory against people-smugglers. Today, it is just under four weeks during which no illegal immigrant has arrived in Australia by boat, nor been taken into Australian immigration authority for transfer to Manus Island or Nauru.
This is the clearest and most emphatic vindication yet of the electorate's decision to change the government in September. It may be something of a turning point in modern Australian history. It offers Australia the chance of avoiding the European fate of creating a vast underclass of people alienated from their host society.
In many areas of national policy, the Rudd and Gillard governments had taken Australia down the disastrous European road. The Abbott government is returning to Australian traditions of governance and policy.
While Australia will still be one of the most generous societies in the world to refugees, they will arrive in an orderly and lawful manner and be chosen by Australian authorities.
The determined illegal immigration to Australia of recent years, coming from all corners of the earth but funnelled by boat through our north, will come to an end.
In six years of Labor government, more than 50,000 people arrived illegally by boat with a steady and alarming increase over the years. Hardly any were sent home.
Australia may now have turned the corner on this dark chapter of lost sovereignty and lawless migration, though it is too early to be definitive.
Conditions during most of the past four weeks have been good for sailing. The monsoon has arrived late in Indonesia and is just getting under way. There may well be weeks more before another boat trip is attempted.
The Abbott government will neither confirm nor deny the numbers, but in the past four weeks some five boats have been turned around or towed back towards Indonesia.
Operational secrecy has been central to the success so far.
Operationally, turning boats back is even more effective than transferring people to Manus or Nauru.
The arrival of people in Manus and Nauru often still triggers final payment for the people-smugglers, who continue to tell their customers that people housed on those islands will eventually get to Australia.
Failed illegal arrivals who return to Indonesia, on the other hand, demand their money back and tell everyone they know that the mission was a flop. Even if the boat is sound and the crew competent, they are met by the Australian navy and kept out of Australia.
Meanwhile, Australia continues to have, per capita, the largest permanent refugee resettlement program in the world. But these refugees are not self-selected nor chosen by illegal people-smugglers - they are all genuine refugees, and none of them drowns on the way here.
Nothing has been more controversial than the secrecy which Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has imposed on the operation.
In general, governments are always best advised to be as open and transparent as possible, but this is a uniquely complex policy question. If the government is successful in stopping the boats, people will probably tolerate a good deal of discretion. There are two compelling reasons for the secrecy. The initial proposal to restrict information came from officials. It is no coincidence that this so far remarkably successful operation has been led by a former Special Forces officer, General Angus Campbell.
The key difference between an SAS soldier and everyone else is what the boffins call the internal locus of control. To the greatest extent possible, the SAS imposes its control on a situation. Information is one crucial variable the government can control, so it does just that.
In one press conference Campbell outlined his reasons for wanting to restrict information. People-smugglers use Australian government information to advertise their product and claim payment. They use knowledge of where vessels are intercepted to plan future voyages. They use Australian announcements to claim credit for their product, even to know precisely what their competitors are up to.
Keeping your adversary as much in the dark as possible is an elementary principle of military operations. Information that leaks out is far less valuable to people-smugglers than information that is announced or confirmed by the Australian government.
The involvement of the Australian military has been central to this operation's success. This is not only because the navy has to carry out the most difficult elements of it, but also because the appearance of an Australian general running the operation, standing by the minister at the early weekly briefings, has conveyed a powerful subtext of resolve. The military also has extensive international connections, especially in Southeast Asia. This additional dimension of engagement and dialogue has been critical.
The people-smuggling industry is no longer confronting a Rudd or Gillard government half-heartedly taking measures they don't believe in. Instead, it is confronting an Abbott government, a wholly different beast. And it is confronting an operation led by a distinguished, determined and supremely competent Australian general.
The second reason secrecy is so important is because it is absolutely essential in dealing with the Indonesian government dimension of the policy. The Howard government turned back boats and the Indonesian government accepted this. The Howard government promised never to say anything about this publicly, and kept its word.
While the boat turn-backs have been reported in the media, the Abbott government has not confirmed them, and this gives Jakarta a necessary degree of breathing space.
As you would expect, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has issued a statement saying the Abbott government may be in breach of international law. This is standard issue UN boilerplate nonsense. There is nothing the Abbott government has done, nor anything the Howard government did before it, which breaches the UN refugee convention in any way.
If Abbott is successful in stopping the boats altogether, the electorate will be satisfied and his government will surely run the line at the next election that a vote for Labor is a vote to restart the illegal boat trade.
Outstanding common sense piece by Greg Sheridan in the Australian today.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...rivals-pays-off/story-e6frg76f-1226800135277#
Excellent article, and thanks for posting it for those of us without access.Outstanding common sense piece by Greg Sheridan in the Australian today.
4 smaller remote detention centres to close,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...re-of-four-mainland-detention-centres/5199160
As the billboard says, human rights abuse starts with secrecy, but in the case of boat-borne asylum seekers, many Australians seem prepared to accept being treated like mushrooms, lest they start to feel complicit in the atrocity.
I think this line is quite striking from Paula Matthewson
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-17/matthewson-abbott-expectations/5203600
IF, you and many other lefties seem to miss the point. Why should Australia use up her charity dollars for people with thousands of dollars to spend and who may not even be refugees? We do not have unlimited funds to take in anyone who is not in need. Even Aussies are means tested - not anyone can rock up to Centrelink to get full payments potentially for life.
I would much rather see a more orderly intake of GENUINE refugees waiting in camps to come here AND taking better care of our own homeless. Both of these desperately need our help and the gate crashers with money surely should be made to enter the country through the proper channels.
So, please lay off the attempt at guilt. However, I actually don't understand why, as a leftie, you are not standing up for the most needy that I have mentioned above. Very odd.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?