MOSCOW, October 30 (RIA Novosti) — Australia has recently introduced a travel ban for those coming into the country from several states of Western Africa, heavily affected by Ebola, a move seen ‘discriminatory’ by some African governments, says Dr. Graham Thom, Australia's National Refugee Coordinator for Amnesty International, to Radio VR in an interview.
“Sitting back, trying to put up barriers and hoping that it is not coming to your country is not going to work, it’s going to let the situation getting worse and worse and worse,” Dr. Thom says. He is confident that recent attempts by the Australian government to isolate the country from Ebola are counterproductive. His viewpoint matches that of some African states and international organizations, all of which have requested billions of dollars in aid from the developed nations to fight the disease.
“I think we need to take a much-bigger-picture approach to what is going on,” Dr. Thom elaborates. “Health experts, the WHO and even the World Bank have come together to say the only way you can stop this from spreading is to tackle it at its source. We need to be taking the appropriate resources to these countries in order to stop it where it started, because if you don’t and if you allow it to spread, then it is only going to get worse. We’re not talking about financial assistance, we’re talking about technical assistance. There is not enough protective gear in those countries, we’re 5,000 short of medical personnel on those countries. If we are serious about countering Ebola, we need to take people on the ground to fight it at its source.”
Reluctance by developed nations to provide enormous financial and technical resources is attributable to several reasons. On the one hand, the global economic recovery is sluggish, meaning financial austerity for many nations. On the other, African governments are notoriously corrupt and inefficient. That is why some nations, including Australia, are implementing isolationist measures. However, Dr. Thom warns, growing isolationism may violate human rights accords, for example, to obtain shelter. Other international humanitarian commitments may well be jeopardized as well.
“Putting travel restrictions that in some cases in countries of West African will lead to a criminalization of people who are trying to look after those with Ebola, the people are being quarantined which has serious impact on their human rights and their legal rights,” Dr. Thom says. “So, Amnesty has real concerns with why did Australia decide to respond to this crisis, which is not only discriminatory, but is also going to undermine efforts to actually deal with it.”
“People can be quarantined and monitored to make sure they’re not going to infect others. And these precautions can be put in place for people who are traveling to Australia, particularly on a humanitarian basis. We’re talking about people who have been recognized as refugees and have been offered protection in Australia and now they are going to be trapped in countries affected by the disease. People who are infectious aren’t travelling already. We have to weigh that up against the risk of doing nothing and not providing appropriate support to be able to tackle this crisis,” Dr. Thom suggests.
However, the expert notes, some isolationism is in fact appropriate when dealig with a crisis like Ebola. “We believe that any quarantine and isolation measures must be implemented in a way that it is safe, respectful and the rights of those quarantined are respected,” he says. “And that is not happening. People are being quarantined in a way that does not respect their rights. What we don’t want to see is the criminalization of the people going there and trying to help. Quarantining means sending a message to other health professionals ‘don’t go there’. That will be counterproductive; we’ll not get people on the ground to fight the crisis at its source.”
Dr. Thom sums up by saying that while a complex approach of both quarantining and sending money, gear and professionals ‘out there’ would be the most productive way of fighting Ebola, the latter would be preferable. He notes that only by significant material sacrifices can Ebola be stopped where it started.
“Obviously, we have to take precautions. These precautions take place on the ground in Guinea, Sierra-Leone, Liberia. That’s where you need to be taking your healthcare professionals. Education is crucial. Domestic response and international response should be in line with the crisis, which is not happening. The UN Secretary General has called for a billion dollars in order to respond. That’s what countries should be doing. We’ll face a greater crisis if we don’t provide financial assistance, technical support and medical personnel, as that’s what should the debate be about instead of putting barriers and quarantining people.”
Thus, the current price the international bureaucracy has put on Ebola, is $1 bn and 5,000 medical professionals, apart from the expenses on equipment and delivery. If such ransom is not paid, they threaten the developed world with an even greater epidemic. However, it is not yet clear how the aforementioned resources are going to help against the disease to which there is allegedly no cure at this point.
As the Ebola debate continues, individual nations are taking pragmatic measures within their reach that would at the same time not damage still fragile economic recovery. The international community is very slow to respond and, with their eyes on the US to take action against the epidemic, rest of world at this point can reckon upon their own efforts to protect themselves, as evidenced by Australia’s government.
