Australia bends over for the ‘Indonesia Solution’
|
As we learned from foreign minister Stephen Smith last night, there is now an agreement between the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono for Indonesia’s to accept asylum seekers bound for Australia. Move over John Howard’s “Pacific Solution”, and make way for Rudd’s “Indonesia Solution”. Rudd will take considerable satisfaction from his visit, formally to mark Yudhoyono’s swearing in for a second term, producing what he will no doubt regard as a diplomatic coup. Australia’s sometimes difficult relations with Indonesia are travelling fairly well at the moment, in large part due to Yudhoyono’s democratic reformist tendencies. That Rudd is also comfortable with regional leaders, and has taken an active interest in Indonesia since at least 1997, further assists the relationship. Smith hesitated to put a dollar figure on Australia paying for this new arrangement, but there is little doubt that funds will be diverted from existing humanitarian projects to help support Indonesia holding the asylum seekers. Smith indicated this when he discussed the range of humanitarian projects that Australia currently supports in Indonesia, identifying the government’s new Indonesia Solution as also based on humanitarian principles. The second “price” issue for Australia will be what diplomatic concessions will have been granted in order to secure Indonesia’s co-operation. In this, there is little doubt that the Lombok Treaty will have been invoked, in particular that part that refers to non-interference in Indonesia’s internal affairs. For this, read that Australia has been told to butt out of any lingering concerns about the continuing abysmal human rights situation in West Papua and not to accept any further West Papuan refugees. Oh, and the Australian government might want to reconsider its approach to the Australian Federal Police investigation into the 1975 Balibo murders while we’re at it. Australia, always more than a little obsequious to Indonesia, has prostrated itself even further. Given that this Indonesia Solution reflects Australia’s much-vaunted humanitarian concerns, as a third issue, one wonders why Smith has put so little effort into the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka, which is pushing so many people into boats. Not only has the predominantly ethnic Sinhalese Sri Lankan government won the war against its Tamil separatists, it is keeping a quarter of a million Tamils in concentration camps, from which outside access is barred. The reports that do filter out from the camps tell of regular extrajudicial murders, rape and torture. And then there is the expropriation of tens of thousands of Tamils from their homes. The Palk Straights with India, too, are heavily patrolled, so the Indian Ocean and Australia is the safer option. In short, the “sailing season” combined with “push” pressures in Australia’s part of the world have led to an increase in asylum seekers getting into boats. Compared to the early 1980s, however, and certainly by current international standards, the number of asylum seekers remains small. This, then, is not an issue of border control or illegal immigration, which is far more taxed at Australia’s airports. The fourth, domestic political issue, then, is that the motivating factor for this Indonesia Solution is not the government’s supposed humanitarian concerns, but the “dog-whistle politics” of racism in the immigration debate. Australia’s politicians arguing about who is the toughest on immigration is simply code for who will sink to this lowest common denominator. Labor promised a more humanitarian approach to asylum seekers. What we now have is just a shift of its geographic focus. Associate Professor Damien Kingsbury is with the school of International and Political Studies at Deakin University. |
|
|
|
20 Comments
This week I heard on Radio National that Australia’s overseas aid budget is about 0.33% of our GDP. This figure includes not only government projects but private and community projects, via church groups, service clubs and Red Cross, Care and so forth.
Why are we getting worried about taking this total to (say) 0.5% of GDP? If memory serves me right, some authorities have been suggesting 2% for many years and even that should be affordable if we forego the odd frivolity… buy a boat 3 feet shorter rather than longer than the one next door, downscale the McMansion of our dreams to closer resemble the family home of our youth, etc.
C’mon! We can do it!
There is nothing wrong with helping the Indonesians to assist those who are currently fleeing via Indonesia in the hope that at least some of them will survive and raise a family, perhaps in Australia or some other country which offers better opportunities than death and worse at home.
Why hasn’t an Indonesian President visited Australia (recently)?
John Bennetts: “…even that should be affordable if we forego the odd frivolity… buy a boat 3 feet shorter rather than longer than the one next door, downscale the McMansion of our dreams to closer resemble the family home of our youth, etc.”
Yep, I guess I could downscale from my non-existent unaffordable boat, to an even more non-existent unaffordable boat. And yep, I guess I could downscale from my 2 bedroom Unit to a one room bed-sitter. I guess I could also sell all my second-hand chip-board furniture resurrected and revamped from a flood, make some out of cardboard boxes, and donate the generated money to this very ‘good cause’. I guess I could, but I won’t be as I’ve shared and given until I can’t give anymore. You can easily tell the moneyed people in this country, they’re so free with wanting to spend other people’s and haven’t a clue as to how the ‘other half’ tries to survive in Australia.
I’m sick to death of being held emotionally to ransom on behalf of other countries who can’t get their s*** together, when we can’t even get our own together and have thousands of homeless and starving right in our own back yard. This bleeding heart has been bled dry!
Cazza, I meant nothing personal, mate. My intention was to suggest that whilst there are folk with boats and McMansions (not you or me) then there is ability to find a few more dollars to assist these refugees closer to their countries of origin.
Re the homeless, I solidly believe that too many of our citizens have been left behind and left right out, especially those who are disabled, look “different”, intellectually disadvantaged, and so forth. That is for another thread, but there is much that should be done if there was only a will to do so.
I’m sure you didn’t John, and I think I’m suffering from a case of compassion fatigue at the moment as compassion doesn’t come without a personal cost. It seems these days I only have ‘compassion’ for my own backyard and when it’s in danger of imploding, the cause has to be eliminated.
Seeing as the amount of what most ordinary people would be willing to part with is based mostly on ‘compassion’ (economics for the gov), I wonder just how ‘compassionate’ the boat people would be if in their journey they came across a drowning human, but if to take him on-board would mean their own boat would be in danger of sinking - what would they do? I think we all know the answer to that.
This might help to inform your opinion:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26237701-25837,00.html
A good article. We certainly dance to the tune of Indonesia, a country riddled with corruption, and with a wealth divide that is just sickening.
Just an after thought: Australia already gives $20,000,000+++ to Indonesia re refugee problem and there is talk of giving more - how much of that money is actually utilised where it is supposed to be?
“Already this year, 1753 people on 33 boats have been intercepted in Australian waters, placing a huge strain on the Christmas Island detention centre.” Are ALL those people actually refugees?
One of WA’s Patrol boats was made redundant early this year (or late last year, I forget which) because of so-called lack of funds - was that a Peter / Paul situation?
Cazza, I don’t think other countries’ issues, or problems in Australia, are a reason to turn away genuine refugees. I would think only someone who has never seen war could have such an opinion (although I’ve never been in a war myself).
I’m on a low income too, and I pay taxes like everyone else, however I don’t see what the big deal is with accepting more asylum seekers (as per our international obligation). In fact I reckon most refugees would - if given the chance - go on to make a massive contribution to this country (so its a net gain to all of us).
If helping desperate people could mean spending a few less dollars on private schools or wealthy electorates (or even political advertisments), then go for it.
Thanks Damien, you nailed it. Also my experience absent destructive addictions and mental health troubles it’s hard to starve in this country, perhaps remote Indigenous excepted.
“One wonders why Smith has put so little effort into the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka”. A good question Mr Kingsbury but directed at entirely the wrong authority and individual. Other than invade, what would you have Australia do?
The question should be “Where the hell is the UN?” Well - it’s doing what the UN always does. Wringing it’s collective hands, asking to send observers and being denied, threatening sanctions without implementing them etc. It’s usual form - staying right out of any real, massive, ongoing slaughter in the third world and sending lots of people to safe “western” countries to compile reports on their political and social deficiency in dealing with the consequent refugees.
Despicable and pathetic.
should read…
Kevin Rudd Bends over Assylum seekers for political capital.
I’ll just leave this here…
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Mr-rudd-asylum-seekers-are-real-people/
Pete - the most important 2 words in your comment are “genuine refugees”. How many are “genuine”? Wouldn’t everybody, who doesn’t want to stay and fight for their own country, be a “genuine refugee”? After many hundreds and hundreds of years of this warring isn’t it about time they fought for their own freedom within their own country instead of running away?
I see a great deal wrong in accepting a never ending supply of asylum seekers and they will always exist while we have such slack control, and while their countries are always and forever at war with each other. Stats released recently show that refugees have been and are still a massive drain on our economy (3 out of 4), apparently very few “go on to make a massive contribution”, except towards crime rates and the unrest of racism. Now Islamabad is ‘officially’ at war get ready for many many more boat loads.
Victoria - thanks for posting that link, it’s only one more to re-enforce my existing opinion. That Justin person is probably behind the people smuggling racket so is comfortable giving this guarantee, “”You can take my word: if the Australian government can assist us, help us to improve the economy, I give a guarantee not a single person will try to reach your country by boat from Negombo.”” Only from Negombo??? It’s always about the money!
Tom - if you think it’s “hard to starve in this country” (that is if people are “absent of destructive addictions and mental health troubles” like you say you are) then you need to get out more, and go help in a soup kitchen somewhere.
Cazza,
In answer to a couple of your questions,
80 - 90 % of asylum seekers arriving by boat are found to meet the criteria and are genuine refugees. ALMOST ALL OF THEM.
“Isn’t it about timethey fought for their own freedom within their own country instead of running away” (Edit). So when you are persecuted by a ruthless regime, you have no weapons and no support, your people and family are raped and tortured and murdered, you are supposed to stand up and fight. (Edit) Get a grip. Any thinking person would run for their life.
“A never ending supply of asylum seekers” Nonsense. 15,000 people have arrived by boat in the last TWENTY YEARS. At this rate, if we get EVERY SINGLE ASYLUM SEEKER EVER TO ARRIVE BY BOAT IN AUSTRALIA together in one place, by the year 2100 we will almost be able to fill the MCG. Oh wait… some of them will be dead by then. So actually we will never fill the MCG. Ah well, keep believing in the bullsh*t lie about “hordes” and “floods” when we actually take less than 0.0001 % of the world’s refugees. We take in over 150,000 immigants each year and consistently less than 1 % of those people are asylum seekers arriving by boat. “Never ending supply”? Get real.
It is very hard to starve in this country. The very fact that we have soup kitchens proves this. Nobody starves in a soup kitchen because….. they are being given food. A Russian refugee who taught me how to play a musical instrument years ago told me with great conviction “there is no poverty in this country.” I got all indignant and said yes there is, of course there is. She looked at me and said, “Can you honestly tell me there are people in this country who cannot get access to food and shelter, no matter how hard they try?” I had to admit that if you try you can access sources of food and shelter from the Salvos, the government, the churches, and other sources. My Russian refugee friend looked at me and said, “If you can always find shelter and food when you try, then there is no true poverty.” I have to agree. True poverty is being totally unable to access food or shelter no matter how hard you try. I don’t believe there is a single person in Australia who can claim that they are starving because they cannot get food no matter what.
Bad as it is to give Indonesia cash-for-corruption, I’m far more concerned about the political costs, so well listed above, Lombok, Balibo, West Papua and who knows what more to come?
As for Sri Lanka, to misquote Nev, “.. a far away country of which we know & care SFA…” that cannot threaten/bribe/block our trade routes.
I voted Labour primarily on this issue, and secondarily on climate change. Dare I say it - the Greens are looking attractive.
The refugee situations, the UN, and Indonesia are all part of the SAME problem. The Second World War was a war to prevent the Axis colonisation of Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacifi. The UN was a noble effort to help nations be guided by their better virtues, but those nations remained silent as the UN was perverted to achieve the colonial ambitions of western corporations including the Standard Oil group. Indonesia is a sad case of corporate exploitation which allowed the Axis leader Sukarno to remain in power in hopes of gaining cheap access to South East Asian resources, a mining opportunity which was realised when General Suharto was helped into office.
As Australians we have a moral obligation to speak up for the people of West Papua who were sold to General Suharto’s rule in the 1962 New York Agreement while the UN was paid $200m by the US. How much copper is dumped into our Arafura Sea each year by Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. ?
Cazza, I can’t see how we have ‘slack control’ on immigration, unless you mean for the illegal immigrants that arrive by plane and overstay their visas. Do you know anyone that’s tried to emigrate here legally, or get citizenship? I do, and its bl-ody tough. Seems like its even harder for boat people! Don’t believe the hype on this.
Can you please reference your stats on refugees being a drain on our economy, and contributing to increased crime rates and racism? This sounds dubious to me.
Besides, there are plenty of things that ‘drain our economy’; like prisons, or national parks. Some things have a higher benefit than simple economic gain - part of being a ‘great country’.
A much bigger drain on our economy is the money spent on detention centres, especially as they filled up during the Howard years of non-time-limited mandatory detention, followed by the even more expensive Pacific Solution, and now the Indonesian Solution of which no one knows what what the cost will be — both in money and in other ways as Damien Kingsbury has written so well.
That money could be better used for direct assistance to people at the source of the problem. And also in ways suggested in the very informative article that Victoria Collins linked to above. (Highly recommended.) Make no mistake, our efforts to keep boat people out have been a much bigger financial burden than the ones we let in.
Australia’s non-refugee immigration quota is very high. Why would that be? Do you suppose we bring in a lot of immigrants out of charity, or because they add to economic growth?