Siev X the case for concern and planning of the Australian System. Siev X a small 19.5 meter wooden fishing boat. Nothing but a boat. On the 18th of October 2001 the boat departed from Indonesia, Bandar Lampung, and suddenly on the midway trip 19th October 2001 the boat began to sink in the international waters, inside the Australian aerial border protection surveillance zone. Estimated 146 children, 142 women and 65 men perished and drowned. Feels like a set up to me. Knowing that the people inside the boat were asylum seekers ‘they’ had to bring them down. This became world news on Tuesday October 23 and later on the boat got dubbed Siev X (Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel X). Cover up indeed.
Many said it was overloaded and unbalanced, some said it was a set up. Let’s find out, read from the article written by Tony Kevin, The 44 survivors form the total 397 had been picked up by an Indonesian fishing boat on Saturday, 20 October. Wait, how would they have noticed that quickly? Said by a survivor the fishermen saw a floating luggage in the water. Did they even have luggage in an ‘overloaded’ small fishing boat? Now this is Fishy. Later on United Nation officials in Indonesia were reported to have learned the disaster three days later.
Now Tony is saying the boat was overloaded saying that the fishing boat was not designed to carry more than the weight of 100 people, although boats of similar size and type have made it to Australian waters in the past with up to 230 people on board. Well this was 379 people and if it were overloaded how did they manage to go so far?
On the way to Christmas Island, their original destination, it was said that one of its two engine failed. With an estimated 1.5 tonne passenger overload, it simply rocked more and more strongly, taking more water, until it capsized within minutes. Were the water that strong and harsh?
Moving on from other misleading and false facts, According to Walker an Australian “A spokesman for the Defence Department said that the closest ship was HMAS Arunta, which was 230 nautical miles south of the spot. On lunch break or something or were they just blind. Continuing Christmas Island is about 400km south Java. So, if Siev X sank 80km south of Java, this would locate Arunta slightly south of Christmas Island at the time of the sinking well south of Australia’s declared maritime exclusion boundary. A mystery indeed, a set up?
Let’s stop for a moment. With all this information first I felt that there was an inside job sabotage from Indonesia. Now I want to state that The Australian system is in the wrong because after all that is going on they did nothing but until the media and news exploded with question all they tried to do was to cover it up. Did they not want the people departing from Indonesia or did something panned go wrong?
Furthermore something is wrong here, the Arunta had the time to get to Siev X, they must have been noticed to do so; the Australians must have knew about Siev X coming on its way. Said by Tony Kevin ‘Why wasn’t an order to intercept issued to the navy? Suspicious, the Australians didn’t want to intercept and later on covered it up by calling it ‘SIEV X’.
New navy rules were set on September 2. The rules were a key part of the border protection package of deterrent measures brought in after the Tampa affair. The details of these rules of engagement were still secret, (why to cover up yourselves?) their board elements were publicly outlined by ministers and spokesmen on September 2-3. Megan Saunders and Australian reported that the Howard Government was deploying an extra five naval vessels and four P-3 Orion aircraft to patrol international waters as close as 30 nautical miles of Java. This is all said by Tony Kevin but I feel he is hiding something as in he is scared to say it.
Phillip Ruddock and Immigration Minister was reported as saying that the effort had shifted closer to Indonesia, to push people-smugglers to turn back once they were intercepted. “We intend to ensure every boat is approached, “He said. “When they are still very close to home, they might be more willing to turn back.” I feel like this gives a clue that they didn’t want them here. The deployment of such extra resources was intended to act as a strong psychological deterrent for people-smugglers.
Prime Minister John Howard said that the move would give “saturation surveillance” in the area between the two countries, but nothing further should be inferred; “We don’t, in this nation, sink boats.” Are you sure about that? Knowing that the case has been active now than you give ‘saturation surveillance.’ Why wasn’t there before? Scoff, don’t sink boats, a liar you are.
My research ends here as I feel there are more than enough information. I have a lot more to ask and more unanswered question. Shouldn’t the Australian now that the fishing boat was coming? Why did it take them so long to get them noticed and rescued? Did they not see the boat sinking? Why did the engine fail? Was it a set up? The boat was so nearby, why didn’t anyone rescue? How was there a fishing boat there to rescue when they were further away? My questions still go on but no answers. How I morn for the casualties, so innocent, nothing but a trip to Christmas Island. This all leads to my opinion. The story that twists your mind and the story that concerns you for the casualty, all leading to the Australians Fault. It was a setup, a cover, it was a plan and all this to the deaths of the asylum seekers.
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.