Do As I Say, Not As I Do

One wonders if the officers responsible for preparing media statements for the Australian High Commission in Dhaka are familiar with their own website. Highlighted in red on the home page is a warning concerning the larger-than-life titled “Operation Sovereign Borders,” by which people arriving in Australia by boat to claim asylum are transferred by the Australian government to “processing centres” in either Nauru or on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. 
Presumably the warning is so English-reading Bangladeshis who might think to travel to Australia by boat but not before they checked the High Commission website might know to expect a frosty reception. More on that in a moment…

Biswajit Das, victim of political wrath.

On 18 December, 8 death and 13 life sentences were awarded to those involved in the well-publicised killing of Biswajit Das last year. It was strange to see those sentenced to death being led away by the police, for as horrific as the Das killing was and as necessary as this justice is, not only for Biswajit's family but nationally, one cannot but wonder if those involved aren't also victims – of Bangladeshi student politics. 
It does not excuse Biswajit's killing – and overwhelmingly there was a sense of relief his killers have thus far been held accountable. Yet it remains tragic that eight young people have been sentenced to die. It is also true that nine families have been broken, not to mention the families of those receiving life sentences. 
Given that the party the killers purported to represent is currently in power – a fact taken to show the independence of Bangladeshi courts, it is unlikely after a government change they would be released due to political pressure. 
As such, the Das case is ripe for those advocating against the use of the death penalty. It is curious that the Australian High Commission remained silent, because they did think to issue a media statement on 11 December 2013 in relation to the then-pending execution of war criminal Abdul Quader Mollah.
The brief statement called on Bangladesh to address the United Nations' special rapporteur's concerns before proceeding with the judicial process. The Australian High Commission also took that opportunity to call on Bangladesh to establish a moratorium on the death penalty.
In a high-minded, wide-eyed westerner with no experience of Bangladesh a blanket opposition to the death penalty is easy to comprehend. Arguments that death penalties cannot be undone where injustice has occurred, that studies have shown the death penalty is not an effective added deterrent to crime and that the state should not institutionalise acts of violence sound reasonable. Indeed, rightly they may be viewed as the ideal.
Yet from the Australian government which claims a close relation with Bangladesh it is equally reasonable to expect a high degree of understanding. It would be reasonable to anticipate a more nuanced view at the least, to the nationally significant execution of Mollah, if a view is to be expressed at all. 

Source: Photo: AFP

Part of the Manus Island Regional Processing Facility.

Why Mollah's death penalty was singled out for public comment is worth considering – particularly as it is inconsistent with the response of silence concerning the death penalties in the Das and other cases. With the geopolitical ramifications of Mollah's execution, it is of concern that the Australian government might simply be trotting out a high human rights standard now and then, to pursue various realpolitik outcomes – in Mollah's case it might be as simple as not provoking an Islamist reaction. 
It is simply odd they would stand up for a convicted war criminal but not for ostensibly ignorant young people who did a terrible thing – and the Das case involved a single murder.
Abroad, just how vocal has the Australian government been in publicly stating its opposition to the death penalty in say, the American media, or in China? Likewise, where is the public condemnation of drone killings in Pakistan which involve no judicial process and through which hundreds of civilians including children have been killed?
How committed is the Australian government, in reality, to its stance against the death penalty and in broader terms, to human rights?
Let's return to the High Commission's home page. The statement concerning Mollah's execution came in the same week that Amnesty International issued a report describing some conditions at the Manus Island immigration detention centre in Papua New Guinea as violating prohibitions on torture. 
Among other things the report found detainees could avail themselves of just 500 ml of water per day, that there was no shade outside despite regular hot conditions and that detainees needed to spend hours each day queuing for food and to use toilets which often had no soap, leading to unhygienic living conditions. Asylum seekers have committed no crime – they have a right to seek asylum.
Neither are Australian immigration detention centres stranger to past instances of self harm, attempted and successful suicides, such is the desperate nature of the conditions in which those who seek Australia's help and protection can find themselves – including children.
The Australian government so recently requesting Bangladesh to consider the concerns of the UN special rapporteur will almost certainly ignore the Amnesty International report.
The statement came in the week too where the Australian High Court delivered judgement in the case of the Sri Lankan refugee known as Ranjini concerning the Australian government's use of indefinite detention without trial. 
Individuals determined to be refugees cannot be sent back to their country of origin – they are normally granted visas. But if the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation decides a refugee is a risk to national security they are detained pending resettlement in a third country, which in practice never happens. 
Such indefinite detention results from a secret assessment in which the refugee has no opportunity to present counter arguments or traditionally, even to know the nature of the security concerns involved – in other words, there is no judicial process. But then, there is also no crime.
Curiously, the majority of those currently held in indefinite detention are Tamil Sri Lankans. Meanwhile the Australian government has instituted cooperation with the Sri Lankan government to stop Tamils from boarding boats headed ultimately for Australia. There is an incentive to maintain cosy relations. 
Ranjini is the widow of a senior Tamil Tiger but was originally granted refugee status, allowing her to live freely in the community – where she remarried and established a new life for herself and her two children. However, a subsequent adverse security assessment resulted in her detention a year later. Her third child was born in captivity last January and is still there.
The High Court ruled that in Ranjini's case the Department of Immigration erred, but did not directly rule on the appropriateness of indefinite detention.
Yet surely a government concerned enough to raise its voice in defence of Mollah's rights, one with a sometimes-expressed stance against the death penalty, does not need a court to tell it that indefinite detention of non-criminals is wrong. It is arguably crueller than the death penalty, since in the latter case there has been a trial and serious crime. 
Given the relative advantages in natural wealth, stability and development Australia enjoys, it is a country with the potential to be a world leader in justice and human rights issues. This potential remains unfulfilled.
At the very least until it cleans its own house, perhaps on justice matters that are of significance to the people of Bangladesh, the Australian High Commission in Dhaka would simply do better to stay silent. Perhaps they could note the implications of their website's home page.