on October 16 when a boatload of 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers, all ethnic Tamils, were rescued from their sinking boat by the Australian ship, but in Indonesia’s search and rescue zone.

Initially Indonesia refused to allow the boat to dock at an Indonesian port, but after negotiations … Indonesia took the boat “on humanitarian grounds” because there was a sick child on board.

But the asylum seekers refused to leave the Australian ship, demanding they be taken to Christmas Island for processing by Australian authorities.

Oceanic Viking breakthrough: asylum seekers to come ashore

There has been a spike in asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat following the increasing violence in Afghanistan and the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Kevin Rudd’s government has been heavily criticised for both its handling of the Oceanic Viking incident and refugee policy in general. His stance is supposed to be tough on people smugglers and border security but humane towards refugees. Critics see it as either too hard or too soft. It’s either encouraging so-called boatpeople or abusing the rights of asylum seekers.

Veteran News Limited journalist Piers Ackerman prides himself on his right wing zeal. Never a friend of Labor governments, he rarely misses a chance to go for the throat:

The Rudd Government has only succeeded in making Australia a more enticing destination for wannabe migrants who don’t meet the nation’s needs, it has helped people jump the queue of refugees seeking resettlement and it has boosted the bank balances of international people smugglers.

Rudd’s red carpet to asylum seekers

Jeremy Sears of An Onymous Lefty is a regular critic of Ackerman. He addressed his remarks to those whom he sees as driven by xenophobia:

One of the most obvious questions I’d like to ask the “THEY’D BETTER NOT LAND HERE” crowd is – where would you like to send them?

You realise that what the people on the boats are doing is precisely what you would do in the same circumstances.
And yet you want them STOPPED. You want them LOCKED UP. You want them SENT HOME.
And the party that promises to treat these people the worst, that party will get your vote?

I’m not scared of the “boat people”. I’m scared of YOU.

Mark Thompson blogs at Seeking Asylum Down Under. His detailed responses to the current situation have looked for the positives in a sea of negativity:

Rudd is between a rock and hard place, politically speaking, as the Coalition [Liberal and National parties opposition] and its conga line of fear mongers in the media whip up the refugee issue yet again. Many people are very prone to xenophobic responses on ‘boat people', choosing to believe the fear drum beaten relentlessly by Turnbull, Stone, Andrews and Ruddock et al. There appears to be something in a large slice of the collective psyche that responds negatively to people arriving on boats.

His hope is for multi-lateral approaches to asylum seekers:

Australia must model best practice in this area, ensuring the provisions of international legal instruments and human rights conventions are followed to the letter. This can be a win/win for asylum seekers, the respective processing authorities, and the countries in the firing line. Opening a regional dialogue and developing a well-resourced multilateral approach, empowering all parties with a stake in a solution to this growing human crisis, would be a good start.

Labor all at sea on asylum seekers - but an opportunity presents itself.

Although this issue has generated a lot of heat and was a crucial part of the 2001 Australian Federal election, very few bloggers have posted about it lately. Perhaps it’s just too complex or a case of Tampa déjà vu.

General Sarath Fonseka Image courtesy Wikipedia

Bailaman reports that to counter the incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa's immense popularity after defeating the Tamil Tigers, “the main opposition party in Sri Lanka (UNP) has formed an alliance to contest at the presidential elections. Led by UNP the new alliance will contest as the United National Front.”

There is a twist in this candidature as per Bailaman:

Interestingly Ranil Wickremasinghe has pledged to abolish Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka if his party wins. With his new set of conditions which requires Fonseka to agree to Ranil Wickremasinghe as PM, Fonseka's role in the governance of Sri Lanka will be minimal.

However Dzone reports quoting the Sunday Leader that:

Reliable sources who spoke on condition of anonymity said Fonseka has categorically stated that he will not abolish the Executive Presidency. Abolishing Executive Presidency is a vital component of the campaign spearheaded by the United National Alliance.

Although the presidential election is not due within 2 years, rumors are that Mahinda Rajapaksa may hold them as early as possible, predictably in early 2010 to take advantage of his current public support. Speculations are high in the Sri Lankan blogosphere and Dheshapaluwa lists 7 reasons why Gen. Sarath Fonseka will run for President of Sri Lanka. To contest at the election Fonseka had to resign from his post in the Sri Lankan military immediately as the government is likely to announce election dates on Sunday, November 15, 2009.

And the expected happened today. Suranimala reports:

It is reliably learnt that Chief of Defence Staff General Sarath Fonseka has handed over his letter of resignation from the post of CDS to the President Office today. It is also reported that Gen. Fonseka has mentioned 16 reasons on his letter of resignation as to why he decided to resign.

Another fact may have induced Fonseka to resign. Sudha Ramachandran at Asia Times tells how Sri Lanka was split over war honors as Rajapaksa's allies downplayed Fonsekas contribution in defeating the LTTE and even had launched a campaign projecting Rajapaksa as “Sri Lanka's savior”:

Fonseka was a big part of the offensive, leading crucial military offensives. He was army commander from December 2005 to July this year, leading the planning of the final phases of the “Eelam War IV”, which culminated in the final defeat of the LTTE.

The Rajapaksa government has tried to downplay his contribution. “It was President Rajapaksa and his brother, Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, who steered the forces to victory against the LTTE,” Labor Minister Mervyn Silva said at a public rally recently, calling on Fonseka and others not to take “personal credit” for the victory.

Fonseka, an US Green Card holder, also was subjected to controversy recently as the US Home Security Department attempted to “interview him over allegations on war crimes in the last phase of the war”, reports Lanka Polity. Sri Lankan government objected mentioning that “he has no authority to share any information relating to national security with third parties.”

Bloggers are also weighing in on Foneska's probable candidacy. Lanka Libertarian thinks that this is a game of the opposition leader Ranil Wickremasinghe (UNP):

Ranil does not expect Fonseka to win if he is the opposition presidential candidate.

He is just fighting for his own political survival as unp leader in case of elections. He wants to revive the unp grassroots for parliamentary elections to prevent another dismal showing, and then hope to remain in control of unp after fonseka loses (or if there is no presidential election).

Indrajit Samarajiva at Indi.ca shows the irony of the situation:

The UNP traditionally includes minorities (though the riots were under a UNP government). They would now give northern Tamils the choice between the guy who bombed them and they guy who ordered the bombing. But stranger things have happened.

Lionel Bopage at Groundviews is apprehensive about another military chief turned democratic leader and poses some questions:

Under the circumstances, what guarantee is there whatever bourgeois democratic characteristics that remain in Sri Lanka will not be brought to an end by an army general elected as President of the country? Would not one want to remain President for life once elected? What are the safeguards that could be applied in such circumstances?