Fawad Ahmed Should Have Been Rejected As A Refugee And Accepted As A Skilled Migrant

Cricket followers will be familiar with leg spinner Fawad Ahmed, who emigrated from Pakistan to Australia and has now played a few one day games for the national team after regularly representing Victoria in state competition.

Now there is some after the fact hand wringing as to whether his refugee claim may have received favourable treatment because of Cricket Australia’s intervention.

His claim for asylum had been in the system for some time. The Dept of Immigration documented their opinion that Ahmed’s refugee case was “borderline”. His claim for asylum was initially rejected by both the Immigration Department and Refugee Review Tribunal.

My point is that this really does matter, but should not have any bearing on whether we let him emigrate here.

Ahmed’s claim for asylum centres around being targeted by the Taliban and their allies for promoting Western values through playing and coaching cricket and being involved with a women’s welfare organisation. This may well be true.

However, even if it is, his remedy was simply to move to another part of Pakistan, say Karachi or Lahore, where as a first class standard cricketer, he would have had no problem socially or with his career. Thus, he is not a refugee in the sense he qualifies for asylum in Australia, or any other country. His application should have been rejected on that basis. The Refugee Review Tribunal were of the same view.

This doesn’t stop us letting him live in Australia.

It is necessary to reject his asylum appeal because he clearly could have escaped persecution by moving to any number of areas in his native Pakistan. The unedifying fiddling with the asylum process by Cricket Australia and others has harmed what little credibility it has.

What should have happened is that someone from the Dept of Immigration or the minister’s office should have contacted Cricket Australia and told them to resubmit Ahmed's application under the normal migration program. He could then have had his application fast tracked because he has skills the country wants. It doesn’t matter what they are. It’s up to us to decide what skills are desirable for migrants to have and which will allow their normal immigration applications to be expedited.

Fawad Ahmed has clearly received some bad advice. In that aspect, he’s hardly Robinson Crusoe. Had this matter been properly handled, as soon as Cricket Australia got wind of his case (which appears to have been early in the piece), he should have been told to resubmit an application under normal migration criteria. It could then have been shepherded through in the same manner as those of wealthy investors or skilled migrants, which the overwhelming majority of Australians are happy to accept, as long as they try to fit in. There’s ample evidence Fawad Ahmed has done exactly this since arriving here.

Martyrdom Not To Middle Class Militants' Taste

You’re protesting against corrupt foreigners doing something you believe is seriously wrong, yet are shocked when they treat you harshly?

It doesn’t matter how strongly you believe in the righteousness of your cause, there’s a balance between the ideal of freedom of speech and the practical, common sense of knowing where it is and is not respected. If you’re going to protest in countries without the protection of Western style legal institutions, you need to be aware of and prepared for the consequences. I don’t believe many middle class, Western activists are as prepared for martyrdom as they think they are.

What strikes me most about the Greenpeace protesters arrested in Russia is their naivety. The captain of the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise is saying that he and his fellow activists “remain in shock at their treatment”.

Why? Seriously, what did you think would happen if you boarded a Russian oil rig, particularly if there were divers working below the surface, as the Russians claim? You didn’t consider that you might be genuinely endangering people you couldn’t see, did you? Just sail up in your boat, hang your banner, take some footage and call yourselves eco warriors.

The collective delusion of supposedly educated adults that they can travel to a foreign country, with a repressive, authoritarian government, protest in whatever manner they deem fit, then express shock when they are not treated as they would be back home beggars belief.

Protester and glorified uni student Alex Harris, 27, says:

“They want to come across as a modern country but they are not. Not the way they treat people, not with their human rights issues. It's a country that doesn't tolerate much and you have to be really careful.”

Umm … der! Did you only figure this out after your arrest? If you knew beforehand, you’re either very committed to political martyrdom or very stupid. If not, you’re a child.

Given her musing on what she missed while in prison, I’d suggest the latter:

“Walking along Manly to Shelly Beach and back, going for a coffee and people-watching. I also really missed riding my bike to work and catching the ferry.”

A serious adult would have decried the way all prisoners are treated in Russia, discussed its use of excessive, politically motivated charges to repress dissent, then stayed on message about oil drilling in the Arctic. Instead, she’s prattling on about herself and how she missed her comfortable, sunshine filled, privileged life.

It smacks of the lightweight, middle class militancy which is the stock of many Greenpeace and similar activists.

“We sailed to the Arctic and hung a banner on their oil rig. It was on the news, did you see? I met loads of really great people and saw some really cool scenery. Check out my photos on Instagram.”

They sincerely believe in the cause, but their mode of protest is primarily cover for a big adventure, largely funded by other people. It’s as much about them playing eco heroes as it is about the cause.

The Arctic Sunrise protesters seemed to think that at worst, they’d be detained and deported. Upon their return home, they’d be interviewed by a few journalists and have a good story to tell all their activist mates. They’d be interesting and popular.

Of course the charges of piracy and hooliganism were grossly excessive. But that happens all the time in countries like Russia. Actually, in pretty much every non-Western country on Earth.

Despite the fall of communism, Russia’s legal institutions bear little resemblance to Western ones. It has an authoritarian, essentially fascist government. There is no meaningful separation of the police and judiciary from this government. In fact, it was probably this lack of separation which caused the protesters to be freed, ultimately without charge. The matter remaining unresolved during the Sochi Winter Olympics would have caused Russia too many diplomatic problems.

I ask this in all seriousness: How could the Greenpeace protesters not have anticipated a very stern response from the Russian government? Did they think it would be like being arrested in France or Spain? Would they have dared try something similar in China? Were they really so naïve as to believe Russia is more like Western Europe than like China because it is run by white people? Or did they believe moral force and international law would curtail the Russians’ response?

The crew would all have been familiar with the jailing of Pussy Riot on similarly excessive charges. What did you think, that the Russians only treat their own citizens that way? They wouldn’t dare do it to Westerners? Yet you all probably rail against cultural imperialism (until you need it).

Naivety appears widespread among the crew of the Arctic Sunrise. Canadian Paul Ruzycki’s view of the piracy charges was:

"It was an overblown charge, and there's no way Greenpeace would ever be convicted of being pirates."

Not in a Western legal system. But in Russia, I wouldn’t bet a few years of my life on it. Their legal system still has many elements remaining from the communist era. Bogus convictions on politically motivated charges is one of them.

By the way, this is a grown man making these comments, puffed up with righteous indignation, ideology and international law. Ruzycki’s take on Russian commandos boarding their ship was:

“They knew we were Greenpeace … they just used intimidation techniques to frighten us and get us to do what they were telling us to do.”

You thought arguing with them might have been possible? Telling them their drilling operation is illegal under international law? Did you think they would ask you all to transfer to their ship to be interviewed and deported? Did you think refusal to comply might have been an option?

The rough treatment was also intended as an example to other Westerners who might get similar ideas. The Russians have used this as an opportunity to let Western activists and their governments know they don’t care what we think. Russia is nuclear armed, runs a massive trade surplus, has enormous mineral wealth and with global warming, its agricultural production is actually increasing, so there are really few levers Western governments can pull if their citizens are detained and mistreated.

One person who does have cause for complaint is Australian Colin Russell. He was held in detention for some time after the other 29 protesters had been released on bail. It’s all very well for Julie Bishop to say that she “had personally written to the Russian foreign minister”. I’m not doubting she did. It probably helped. However, why did the Australian government not make the strongest diplomatic representations immediately upon learning that one of our citizens was being singled out for special treatment? We still do not know the reason.

Australian governments have long had a very poor record of assisting our citizens caught up in corrupt, foreign legal systems. The cases of Jock Palfreeman in Bulgaria and Kerry & Kay Danes in Laos are salient examples.

Given this, it is the most naïve stupidity for Alex Harris to contemplate returning to Russia to protest further during the Winter Olympics. I believe she’s actually a British citizen, but that won’t help her: the last British Prime Minister with any balls was Margaret Thatcher.

The only thing which will save her is that she won’t get across the border.

The deluded plans of some of the activists to return to Russia for further protests are exactly what Australia’s foreign minister, Julie Bishop is talking about when she raised the possibility of Australians who “acted recklessly or deliberately acted against the laws of another country” being made to contribute to the cost of consular support or extraction.

Fair enough. Political protest is not a job, even though some seem to think it is. The Australian taxpayers have not employed Greenpeace to protest against Russian oil drilling. We shouldn’t foot the bill when naïve idealists deliberately get themselves into trouble in a foreign country, despite explicit warnings. Greenpeace can pay. That might force them to plan more adult protests, as opposed to adventure holidays for glorified uni students.