Human rights violation is an issue that raises concerts and public concern in any nation and the issue can be aggravated where the victims involved are innocent children. Since 2014 the government started an offshore processing facility in Nauru which is an offshore immigrant processing facility located south of the Pacific Island (Griffits, 2017). Although Nauru is considered as a state the country has a large population of asylum seeking population which comprises of main children. Nauru has relied on its phosphate mining operations to support the large population of immigrants in the Island most of whom are children (Scotty, 2016). The Howard’s government started this facility as part of the “Pacific solution” which is targeted to facilitate the processing of the large number of asylum seekers coming to Australian. Since 2012 the government has forcibly transferred and detained up to 1,282 men and women and about 1509 children and the number of children being detained in this facility has increased significantly (Bowen, 2015). Several hundred children are detained in this offshore facility while being deprived access to healthcare, quality education and basic needs which other children freely access.
The condition at the offshore processing center run by the Australian government is deplorable raising public concerns about the young children detained at the facility. The issue of Nauru children came to the limelight in 2014 when the human right watch run a documentary about the situation on this island. It was evident the situation on the island was that of unlawful detention of children which violates the international law on human rights and the plight of refugees (Amnesty, 2016). The step by the Australia government to employ arbitrary detention of refugees under such deplorable conditions is a legal violation of the humanitarian law. According to the 1951 U.N refugee convention on refugee, non-refoulement states that “no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his/her life would be threatened (UNHCR, 2010).” The step by the Australian government to develop an extraterritorial detention center for refugees amounts to a violation of the provisions of this convention on refugee protection. The issue is eve complicated by the fact that the individual detained on this island are underage children who do not even have access to basic needs. The detention conditions at Nauru have also contributed to the detained children facing health problems, indemnity issues and even sexual abuse (International, 2016). It is shocking that the death rate in Nauru due to health-related complications is at 40 percent while 24 percent of the children less than five years had symptoms of retarded growth. In addition to the issues of nutrition and health, the children are at risk of being stateless and will not be able to access education. It is necessary to understand the process that led to the development of this detention center and the likely effect of the facility.
Background
The government of Australia over the past few years has focussed its efforts towards deterrence of immigration into the country. The immigration policies of the country have focussed on getting rid of all the immigrants moving into the country. The policies prompted the government to institute processing center in Nauru to assist in the processing of the illegal immigrants trying to gain entry into the country (ASCR, 2016). The common practice has been the “turn back” in which the military force asylum seekers to return back to their country. The second approach used by authorities is the “offshore processing” in which the offshore processing facility of Nauru was developed. The deterrent policies have grown in magnitude over the last five years with the first transportation of about 1,282 people to the offshore processing facility in Nauru in 200. Over the years under the different governments, the offshore detention practice has been perfected with the development of immigrant detention facilities in Papua New Guinea and Nauru (Chad, 2012). The number of immigrants detained in these facilities has increased significantly and about 1,637, refugees are currently detained in Nauru alone. The issue of concern are the costs associated with detaining a person at the Nauru facility (Grunfield " Smuelers, 2011). Research shows that it is more expensive to detain a person at the facility, for example, it takes $1,927 to maintain one refugee at the facility which is a prohibitive cost.
The offshore detention facility for children and adults in Nauru has continued operating despite the government’s assurance to the public that the facility would be closed down. The recent development was in 2011 when the government decided to develop and register Nauru as a ratified U.N convention (Rob, 2010). The situation was deemed necessary with the increase in the number of immigrants and unaccompanied children arriving in Australia by boats. Mainly from Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia among other conflict-prone areas. The increasing number of refugee necessitated the Australian government to revive the original plan of developing the offshore processing facility (rights, 2011). The government released about 76 million U.S dollars to aid in the process of building the processing facility amid criticism and public outcry. Through the signing of an MOU with the government at Nauru, the government acquired the lease to the property and the process of development commenced immediately.
Conditions Children face at the Nauru Immigrant detention center
The new center was developed in Nauru for the purpose of processing of the transferee's majority of who were young children and women. The government of Australia claimed that the new station was meant for short-term processing of the transferees before integrating the refugees (Scotty, 2016). However, the processing and processing has become a systematic way the Austrian government was using to round up and deter refugees from entering Australia. The policy used in the newly build processing facility that has been in operation since 2012 is same as the old “turnback” system. The system violates article 14 of the Universal declaration of human rights of 1948 that states that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution (UNHCR, 2010).” However, the results of the new third country and the new refugee and asylum seeker policy have been an increase in the detention of young children under inhumane conditions. It is reported that in 2015 alone there were over 551 children detained at the facility some of whom had been detained for averagely 445 days (Adler, 2013). The sad fact is that some of these refugees were facing harassment and abuse in addition to being deprived their rights. Some of the children have developed mental conditions due to the psychological, emotional and physical torture at the facility (Fox, 2016). Due to the conditions, some detained immigrants at the facility have developed mental conditions and some have even resorted to self-harm since it is the only tool of protest at their disposal.
There is evidence of deplorable conditions and hopeless among the children at the facility because of the lack of basic amenities especially water and food. The children in Nauri live in cramped conditions and different volunteer workers at the facility admitted to the hardship with the sanitation and hygiene at the facility (Grunfield " Smuelers, 2011). The children at Nauru facility face many risks particularly due to the mental, emotional and physical torture that the children are going through. The 1984 U.N convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibits governments from subjecting asylum seekers particularly children to torture (Bowen, 2015). However, the Australian government was subjecting the detained immigrants to punitive conditions in complete violation of this convention. For example, the asylum seekers have limited access to health services because of the limited number of hospitals. The mortality rates at the facility are quite high and access to basic health services impossible, this means that almost 2 in very children below the ages of five at the facility die out of preventable causes (Sorlie, 2016). The number of schools in Nauru is limited and this means that only a small number of the children can enroll in classes and although the government is spending a lot of money to detain the children it cannot afford the $84 to educate a child (Orakhelashvili, 2011). The implication of the limited access to education at the facility meant that only a handful of the children at the facility could access adequate education. Education is a human right for all the children but the sad reality is that only a handful of the children can access education. The children face other challenges including violence and there were cases of sexual violence particularly towards the young girls (rights, 2011). The government has politicised the issue by stating that the facility was abandoned way back in 20018 but a recent news shows that Nauru detention center is still operational.
Impact of Detention of the Children at Nauru
As identified earlier the children at the Nauru Center suffer from emotional, psychological and physical distress. Majority of the children at the facility were separated from their parents and this affected them psychologically (Orakhelashvili, 2011). There are even cases of forced separation with some of the children being taken to another processing facility. The prolonged detention of the children has many significantly negative consequences on the development of the children (Marie, Frank, " Newman, 2010). The children’s mental health as at stake and detention increased the stress levels and the children cannot freely enjoy playing and other physical activities that normal children enjoy. Research at the facility revealed that majority of the children were sad being on their own and felt locked out of the physical world.
The health and social workers at the facility have reported managing distressed children who in most instances are suicidal. The teenager at the facility was mainly under suicide or self-harm watch which highlights the kind of challenge that the children at the facility face (Amnesty, 2016). The survey conducted at the facility revealed that 25 percent of the children at the facility were worried or sad for some reason (Scotty, 2016). Some of the children experience behavioral and developmental issues due to the distressing conditions at the facility. This contravening the provisions of the Rights of the Child convention of 1989 article 6 that says, “Children have the right to live a full life. Governments should ensure that children thrive and develop healthily (rights, 2011).” The main effect was evident in the irritability, sadness and sleep disorders that the doctors at the facility have had to manage. The workers at the facility admit that Nauru is not safe for children and majority of the children held at the facility seemed traumatized.
In addition to the health issues, it was evident that the detention environment exposed the children to abuse. The sad reality is that some of the young girls at the facility were at risk of child abuse. Reports have verified that some of the young girls at the detention center have had to face sexual assault. Further, the children lack the privilege of accessing education in addition to the risk of being declared stateless. It is important that the Australia government takes proactive measures to ensure an immediate end to immigrant child detention because it contributes to more harm than good.
Conclusion
In summary, the operations at the Nauru refugee processing center is violating the child rights as provided for in the U.N convention. The governments continued detention of the children for prolonged periods of time under torturous conditions is a contravention of the rights of the child. It is the role of the government and international human right bodies to protect the rights of refugees seeking refuge. However, in the case of Nauru, the government has turned its protective powers to harm people it is supposed to protect. As a result of the detrimental impacts of the detentions, the government needs to move in speed to look for alternative ways of processing the children in line with the provisions of the U.N conventions.
Recommendations
1. The Australian government should cooperate with the United Nations and other human rights bodies in investigating the operations at Nauru. It is clear that the long processing time is causing trauma and torture to the children. The task force should look at ways to reduce the amount of time spent at the facility and look for ways to shorten the period to reduce suffering.
2. Australia as a country should consider the community processing model for juvenile asylum seekers. Community processing can be the best approach that can help integrate the children without subjecting them to child abuse and torture.
3. The government should consider closing down the Nauru refugee processing center and transfer all the children held at the facility to Australia. The extraterritorial detention of immigrants should only be applied when there is legal backing for such actions.
References
Adler, L. (2013). Migration: Immigration and emigrationinternational perspective. Westport.
Amnesty. (2016). The island of Despair: Australis processing of refugees on Nauru. Amnesty International.
ASCR. (2016). Children in detention. Asylum seeker Resource Cnetre .
Bowen, C. (2015). Never Again: let's end the detention of children once and for all. Joint statement by Australian Organization and community groups.
Chad, C. (2012). The immigration debate in Australia: from Federation to World war one. Sydney: Australian Parliament.
Fox, C. (2016). An authorized Welfare: The origins of immigrant status. American history.
Griffits, H. (2017). Harassment Is denying Refugee children on Nauru an education. Human rights watch.
Grunfield, F., " Smuelers, A. (2011). International crimes and other gross human rights violations: a multidisciplinary textbook. John Wiley and Sons.
International, A. (2016). Nauru: weakening human rights protections and rule of law. Amnesty International.
Marie, V., Frank, E., " Newman, I. (2010). Juvenile sentencing system. Berkey: Human rights advocates.
Orakhelashvili, A. (2011). International Human rights violation, and the subject matter immunity of states and their official. Humans rights violations and the subject matter.
rights, G. a. (2011). Rules of engagement: Protecting Civilians through dialogue with armed nonstate actors. Geneva: Academy of humanitarian law and human rights.
Rob, M. (2010). The law of armed conflict and international human rights law: some paradigmatic differences and operational implications. International humanitarian law, p 213-243.
Scotty, C. (2016). opening statement committee on the rights of the child. The government of Nauru.
Sorlie, A. (2016). Legal Gender meets reality: A socio Legal Children perspective. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 33 (4) 255-289.
UNHCR. (2010). Fact Sheet No 20, Human Rights and Refugees. Washington DC: Unites Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
