When, late last year, the Australian government refused to let asylum-seekers arrive by boat and instead sent them to Pacific islands, it seemed like a textbook example of a government ignoring long-term consequences of actions for domestic political advantage. The year 2002 should demonstrate whether it continues to work out that way.

The measure was first applied when a Norwegian freighter, the Tampa, rescued some asylum-seekers.

Mostly Afghans, they were in a sinking boat which had left the Indonesian island of Java for Australia's Christmas Island. Australia prevented the Tampa from entering Australian waters and diverted the asylum-seekers to the island nation of Nauru which the Australian government paid to receive them.

This became known as the ``Pacific solution'' to the issue of illegal migrants. As more boatloads of asylum-seekers arrived, they were likewise prevented from landing and mostly diverted to Nauru, though some were sent to the island of Manus, part of Papua New Guinea. (The actual number Australia had to deal with from the Tampa was reduced by 131 when New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark offered to take up to 150. New Zealand processed the applications itself. Refugee status has so far been granted to 130).

This refusal to let asylum-seekers into Australian waters and sending them elsewhere contributed significantly to the return of the ruling conservative Liberal Party-National Party coalition, led by John Howard as prime minister, in a House of Representatives and half-Senate election on Nov. 10. It was the third consecutive election Howard had won.

The Australian government suggested that some of those seeking to come to Australia might be Afghan terrorists. The combination of a strong stance against terrorism and the stand taken against the asylum-seekers worked strongly in the government's favor.

Australia offered to pay the Pacific islands to receive the applicant refugees. It initially paid Nauru A$20 million (1.4 billion yen) as well as providing the facilities and food to sustain them. Australia later paid Nauru another A$10 million to accept further asylum-seekers. The Fiji government was reported to have been offered A$20 million to take 1,000 asylum-seekers. Recently Papua New Guinea agreed to take up to 1,000-784 more than it had in late January-and to accommodate them for a year. The Papua New Guinea government's action initially caused internal dissension which resulted in the foreign minister and the secretary of foreign affairs losing their posts.

Australia also increased the surveillance of its northern coasts and deployed defense forces ready to divert any further attempts to land on its shores.

It passed legislation which said that anyone landing on some of its outer islands was not entitled to any legal right to have a case for refugee or other asylum status considered by Australian immigration or legal authorities. Besides those intercepted and diverted, one estimate is that another 630 have been turned back by the Australian Navy. About 350 others are believed to have died when a boat sank.

There are 1,118 asylum-seekers on Nauru waiting to have their applications processed by Australian immigration officials and by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The total population of the tiny island of Nauru is probably about 10,000 so this is a significant addition to the population and makes a major difference to the population balance.

Nauru was once heavily mined for phosphate, and since the end of the mining its people have been in dire financial straits, a condition which helps explain the readiness of the Nauru government to accept the money offered to take the asylum-seekers.

The Australian government has justified its actions on several grounds. It has maintained the right of Australia to choose who comes to its shores and makes up its population. It has argued that the asylum-seekers are brought by people-smugglers and that Australia's action is against those smugglers of humans. It has argued that the numbers of people arriving create too great a cost for Australia to bear. It has argued that by attempting to become illegal migrants, the boat people are jumping the queue at the expense of those who are seeking to migrate to Australia by legal means. It wants to send a tough message to other people planning try to enter Australia illegally.

The Howard government's action in refusing to take the boat people attracted both domestic and international criticism. A number of Australians considered their government's actions heartless. Questions have been raised and not answered about the costs to Australia of the ``Pacific solution.'' One recent report put the cost at A$285 million. Australia's international reputation may have been harmed and when it holds an international conference with Indonesia during February it may be less influential than it could have been.

The country has been a generous haven for refugees. The intake of people on humanitarian grounds is about 12,000 a year. The seeming lapse into meanness and the creation of a perception of xenophobia has helped undo a good image.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was alarmed lest Australia set a precedent for other countries which are the target for asylum-seekers. Some critics pointed out that various countries, including Pakistan, are host to millions of asylum-seekers and Australia was making a fuss about a few thousand. Doubts were raised as to whether Australia was fulfilling its legal obligations under the international conventions on refugees it has signed.

What will happen to the asylum-seekers if they are not granted refugee status or if no country will accept them? Nauru has said that it wants the asylum-seekers gone by the middle of May. In the short term there is reason to be concerned about any adverse reaction by the asylum-seekers if they do not get refugee status or if they are assigned to countries to which they do not want to go.

Nauru has no defense forces and its police force would not be able to cope with a serious riot.

In Papua New Guinea the situation is different. It has a defense force but that force is undisciplined and who knows what will happen should it be called on to deal with a riot.

Some asylum-seekers who arrived before the Tampa are detained within Australia. Their applications were being deliberately delayed. After a hunger strike at the Woomera detention center during which a number of adults and children sewed their lips shut, the processing of applications was re-instituted and a number of children shifted from the center.

Is there a role for Japan in all this? Japan has been at the forefront of plans to help the rebuilding of Afghanistan after the war. It provided the venue for the International Conference on Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan. It was one of the four co-chairs of the donors' meeting, with the United States, Saudi Arabia and the European Union. Japan was the most generous donor offering $500 million (65 billion yen) over two years. This is despite Japan's financial troubles. The aid will focus on the resettlement of refugees, improving education and health care, the empowerment of women and the removal of land mines.

All that is generous and impressive. It will help the overall problem in two ways. Fewer people will want to leave Afghanistan. Secondly, many of those who have migrated will want to return and for those who do not get refugee status or find no country willing to receive them the prospect of returning will seem more appealing. This would apply to those at present in Nauru and in Papua New Guinea just as it would apply to Afghans who have fled to Pakistan or other countries.

In my view, however, Japan should not play any part which could be interpreted as backing the ``Pacific solution.'' For one thing, it would be seen as acting outside the prescriptions of the United Nations. For another, Japan has its own relationship with the countries of the Pacific Islands Forum and any move which could be seen as supporting Australia's approach would almost certainly be seen as against the views of the majority of Pacific Islands Forum members.

Japan's contribution should, in my view, continue to be in the overall settlement of the problem, not in any specific Pacific role.

　　　　　　　　　　　　*　　　　　　*　　　　　　*

Stuart McMillan is a writer on international affairs and a fellow in the political science department of the University of Cantebury in New Zealand. He writes a weekly column on international affairs for the National Business Review.