tip off

In the race to be brutal, you have to finish the job

Australia’s policy of brutality towards asylum seekers isn’t foolproof, as the deadly Manus Island protest revealed. Pitched into the Pacific solution by Labor, the government now has to own it.

There’s a story, probably apocryphal, about Stalin, in the immediate aftermath of the Russian revolution. Sent south to put a bit of steel into the backbones of some local anarchists the Bolsheviks were in temporary alliance with. He breezes into their office and says, “right, how many priests have you shot?”. When he hears the answer “none”, he says, “oh, you people aren’t serious at all!”. Nor is there any doubt he meant it, by that time.

Ruthlessness, see. It is a quality not easily achieved, the indifference to the fate of the other. The Bolsheviks cultivated it. Humanists and intellectuals, they realised that their habitual pose was questioning, reflective, at worst diffident. To do what they felt they must, they became their own opposite.

The liberal tradition, as defined by Tim Wilson, our latest rights bureaucrat, is a universal commitment. The rights spring from the nature of the human being, any human being, as purposive, loving, conscious of death, meaning-making. But the Right is not only liberal, it is conservative too. And conservatism is anti-liberal. Against the abstract notion of the “human”, it opposes given and self-identified societies, and refuses all obligation to those outside them. Generosity, maybe, if conditions permit. But generosity as the gift bestowed, not the duty to another fulfilled.

That conservatism is what both major parties draw on in prosecuting our lethal mandatory detention policy. At its most confident, that sort of conservatism ascends to a total indifference to the people over the hill, beyond the shore, across the border. Ruthlessness — parochial ruthlessness — is grounded in that indifference. It sees reciprocity as a fixed quantity, to be extended to family first, then community. Nationalism mimics that sense of affinity, tries to generalise it, to give a sense of commonality to everyone from Broome to Bicheno, and to then direct it outwards, against the others.

But of course that’s self-cutting against the grain. The border, even for the world’s only continent-island-nation-state, is now a fictional one via trade, media, travel and all those other things that liberals enthusiastically spruik. You can’t help but deal with the others on their own terms, which is why refugee policy for two decades has been determined by the desperate search for some notion of “fairness” that can be applied to it — a justification for ruthlessness, not in conservative terms, but in liberal ones. These people didn’t queue, we’re punishing the people smugglers, legitimate migrants want family reunions, etc. The desperate search for an abstract reason to impose the sternest measures.

But the need for such universalism imposes strict limits. By invoking notions such as fairness, you have already ceased to be “indifferent” to the others, since you have differentiated them. Honest migrants from queue jumpers, huddled masses from people smugglers, the persecuted from opportunists and so on. Having failed to be systematically, one might say courageously, ruthless, any sudden lurch into it looks merely grotesque — witness Immigration Minister Scott Morrison’s sniggering remarks on Insiders about the Indian student who committed suicide after being detained for overstaying his visa. Could Morrison order someone killed for overstaying their visa? Not in a million years. So the tough guy stance directed at someone brought to fatal despair sounds more hyena than human. It is the expression of someone willing to do let circumstance do their dirty work for them, a type of lethal passivity. Ruthlessness is hard won, an achievement.

The politics of Australia is uniquely soft. The people who talk of being “hard men”, etc, are simply those who have won some tedious factional battle in some union somewhere, or one wacko young Lib faction having stacked another wacko faction’s branch. Ditto the wider culture. The utter disdain for the other that can be released or revived in other cultures, with lethal results, simply isn’t present. Instead it is, for the most part, channelled into sports and talkback radio. That it then determines politics doesn’t mean that it can be lived up to. Though the death of asylum seekers by drowning has been the justification for the new harsh regimes and leapfrog “solutions” — once again, a measure of just how liberal the arguments must be — the notion of a border was sufficient for many people to preserve just enough indifference to not ask whether our navy had done all it could to save such people.

Having had an economy seemingly running on auto-pilot for so long, we now seem to be willing to choose our governments solely on their capacity to manage our collective anxieties.”

But shooting people dead, in an Australian-run camp, in a situation where security guards appear to be much of the cause of violence, cruelty and chaos, is something else again. It’s an event that can’t help but disorder the whole regime. Any number of people can commit suicide in a detention camp, and that too can be sheeted back to them. But kill someone and there’s two choices: you either abandon any idea of law altogether, or you have to own the process in some way. The first option is simply impossible. The latter means that the dead guy or guys will be around forever — and will exist as persons in the system far more visibly than they did when they were alive. Ruthlessness. When you start a process, you better be ready to finish it.

Of course there is no way of finishing it.

Once you open a concentration camp on a far-flung island, you better be willing to go all the way with it. Since a concentration camp reduces any inmate to nothing, to a mere unit, sooner or later people will reclaim their humanity by resisting, on any terms. At that point, you can either respond with absolute ruthless force, or you’ve already started to lose. The camp is the starting point of a process whose end is extermination, either exemplary or mass. If you’re not prepared to go that far, then, when you started it, you weren’t being serious at all.

That is the point the Coalition are at now. They were pitched into this part of the Pacific solution by the Rudd government, and now they own it. We don’t know whether the latest lethal chaos was started by protesting inmates who were then set upon by G4S guards, or local police or Manus Islanders or all three. But at some point it seems clear the locals took things into their own hands. There is something tragically ironic about this, because while Australians play at being hard, PNGers are the real deal — a nation-state grouping together multitudes of parochial societies, most of whom see violence as part and parcel of everyday life, of honour and respect. This was always the most bizarre part of the idea of refugees being permanently “settled” in PNG — the suggestion that people could simply move into a kinship society, maybe get a condo in some up-and-coming part of Moresby, when the whole country is criss-crossed with lines of affiliation and belonging. Madness on stilts, literally in this case.

The lesson one draws from this, in organising against it, is not that Australians are currently a brutal people hiding behind a sunny veneer, but that they aren’t — and that the Coalition doesn’t believe they are either. Why attack the veracity of the “burnt hands” story if that were not the case? Why not simply, smirkingly, say the navy got a little creative, or some-such? The Coalition knows that many of the people who support the bipartisan line on boat arrivals are either humane or squeamish, depending on your angle. They know for that reason that what the mass of the population wanted was not a harsh policy per se, but for the refugee problem to be invisible. No boats is one way of it being so, riots in camps is very much not.

Though taking a harsh line on boat arrivals is held to be a political necessity for both major parties, the Coalition knows there is a paradoxical effect contained within (one that also applies to a range of other social issues such as the environment). A policy that makes refugees invisible will gain broad support. But one that taps into a conservative indifference to the suffering of others, or even a degree of forthrightness/bastardry, is more likely to win slices of support in socially conservative Labor seats where the Libs don’t have a chance, and lose support in some marginal Liberal seats, where Labor has a very real chance. In a tight election — such as forecast by this week’s Essential poll — that pattern would make or break the Coalition’s chances.

Indeed, Australia now has a very strange and interesting politics. Having had an economy seemingly running on auto-pilot for so long, we now seem to be willing to choose our governments solely on their capacity to manage our collective anxieties. I’m not sure any other polity in the world is quite so committed to this political-psychological form at the moment, though it has echoes of Salazar’s clerico-military Portugal of the grand old days. Simultaneously lethal and yet not serious, not serious at all, it is far more vulnerable to a call for common humanity and collective values than it looks.

26
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    I thought “Pontius” Morrison’s “absolution” that if these people (held under these conditions - we’re not allowed to see) took things to such extremes (as protesting their sort of incarceration) then they should be prepared for the consequences handed out by the relevant authorities - like being shot?
    What could happen if this clown was in charge and a protest got “out of hand” as judged by someone having an off day?

  • 2
    Dez Paul
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Another cracker of a read, thanks Guy. I don’t think this gummint or the official opposition have the nuance or subtlety to manage such a fine balancing act - keeping the subject of refugees off the front page just won’t work. Its the inverse rule of exposure - the more desperately someone wants something hidden, the more likely it is to be exposed.

    The bastardry has now sired a few more bastards of its own. Morrison won’t own this problem and will deflect it to G4S, the PNG police, refugees themselves - anyone but him and the Coalition policies.

    As an aside, be interested to know what your take is on governments outsourcing the administering of punishment and detention. Just as we collectively abrogate ourselves of responsibility for humane refugee treatment with “liberal” justifications for “conservative” practices, do governments abrogate responsibility for punishment and detention with “economic” justifications?

  • 3
    paddy
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Well worth my sub today Guy. Thanks for the view from just outside those sovereign borders.

  • 4
    Wynn
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to take some comfort from this analysis that someone somewhere in the political class might be driven to a different approach, but I don’t know. So far they seem to be doing a pretty good job of sheeting responsibility for the death and injuries to the asylum seekers themselves, and by the time any investigation is completed, the ‘news cycle’ will have moved on.

    God knows what does have to happen.

  • 5
    mg57
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Excellent piece Guy. I’m fearful for the people who will suffer as the ramifications of this bloody excuse for a policy, plays itself out. Both sides should hang their heads in shame.

  • 6
    Ingle Knight
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Mention of Stalin leads me to wonder whether the islands, Christmas, Manus and Nauru, now constitute our very own Gulag Archipelago.

  • 7
    zut alors
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    …we now seem to be willing to choose our governments solely on their capacity to manage our collective anxieties.’

    I’ve always thought this to be the case.

    But who suspected that an Australian Immigration MInister could actually be more odious than P Ruddock.

  • 8
    sureshpathy2
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Well, this was the next step in the dance that the Greens committed us to when they wrecked the Malaysian solution.
    The last and inevitable step is Australia withdrawing from the Human Rights convention.
    Many other first world countries are watching closely and will be taking comfort from Australia breaking down previously impenetrable barriers.
    Gillard held out the only option in ensuring that Australia avoided the depravites that we are engaged in, but all the Greens could do was reject it. I hope that they are feeling nice and smug and immune to the consequences of their actions. They put Abbott into power and ensured that Australia is a cruel country

  • 9
    Andybob
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Guy, interesting as always.

    Morrison gives every impression of being pleased that yet another horror has been added to incarceration on Manus Island, without directly implicating HMG. There may even be a second edition comic prepared showing these new and dangerous risks of coming by sea.

    Meanwhile the reality: that Australia does not have a refugee problem, but has such deep and underlying problems with its relationships with Malaysia and Indonesia, such that those nations wink at the people smuggling operations, just continues to deteriorate.

  • 10
    Dan Murphy
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    one that taps into a conservative indifference to the suffering of others, or even a degree of forthrightness/bastardry, is more likely to win slices of support in socially conservative Labor seats where the Libs don’t have a chance, and lose support in some marginal Liberal seats”

    Turn it up! The old ‘doctor’s wives’ theory that was discredited in the elections of the early 2,000’s. Poor buggers sewing their lips together in Woomera couldn’t shift significant numbers of middle class ‘small l liberals’ to vote against their economic interest.

    Disappointing from Rundle. As some sort of former or post Marxist I expect him to stick to economic determinism i.e. that people act according to their economic interest.

    This was proven in 2007 when the Liberals were finally turfed out because they wanted to rip up working conditions and the working class voted largely united.

    The lesson for the left? The main game is economic well being/quality of life issues: job security, wages, housing affordability, education health, pensions, super etc.

  • 11
    Jimmyhaz
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    If people voted according to their economic interest, then the LNP would win very very few seats in any election, and the Republicans would cease to exist as a political party in the US.

  • 12
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Will the minister be visiting Nth Korea for ideas?

  • 13
    CML
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    @ sureshpathy2 - I agree with your contention that the Greens must shoulder a lot of the blame for what is now happening in Manus, and the LNP ‘policies’ generally in this area. I was always a supporter of the Malaysian solution, and you are correct to say that if this was now in place, none of this barbarity would be happening.
    I also agree that the end result of current LNP policy on asylum seekers, will lead to our withdrawal from the Refugee Convention.
    As I have said before on this topic, much of the ‘boat-people problem’ could have been solved by giving Christmas Island back to Malaysia some years ago. It is a damn sight more difficult to get to the Australian mainland from Indonesia, than to CI, and I believe that transfer would have largely stopped the people smuggling trade stone dead!
    But no! it seems that the majority of Australians (and their governments) like extreme cruelty and barbarism to seeking a more humane outcome.
    We could then have lifted our humanitarian intake over the years to around 50,000, no one would have drowned and there would be a much more ordered system. The Oz community might just have accepted that, and maybe Indonesia and Malaysia too. Somehow, I don’t think we will ever find out, now that the faci+ts are in charge.
    It can only get worse!!

  • 14
    CML
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    sureshpathy2 - I have written some comments for you. Please read when they are no longer held up!

  • 15
    Chris Hartwell
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Jimmyhaz, voting in one’s economic interest requires one to be informed. The ideal market is actually a fair one, where power is shared between consumer and supplier, and both are rational, informed and self-interested actors.

    Pity reality shies away from that ideal. The average voter may be self-interested, some may even be rational, but very very few are informed. The political class would largely keep it that way as well.

  • 16
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    For those interested, this is a link to the appropriate Amnesty International campaign.

    http://www.amnesty.org.au/action/action/33923/?&utm_source=int2014&utm_campaign=Morrison&utm_medium=email-sf&utm_content=take+action

  • 17
    colin skene
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Morrison is the most loathesome Australian alive. As simple as that. Maybe someone can do something about that. The nation would benefit.

  • 18
    colin skene
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    His “loathesomeness” I meant.

  • 19
    rhwombat
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Guy Rundle: excellent article - apposite and original, as demonstrated by it’s power to stimulate Dan Murphy’s (really?) sneer. You know you’re winning when the wingnuts squeal.

  • 20
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    colin skene we can dream sometimes dreams come to fruition.

  • 21
    Wynn
    Posted Wednesday, 19 February 2014 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    To blame the Greens for scuttling the Malaysian solution illustrates the point made in this article (and ignores that thing called the High Court). Does anybody really think Malaysia offered some refugee utopia? That a few people might be marginally better off than they are in Manus does not make it a good solution - but it does get people out of the way.

    The Malaysian ‘solution’ is only relevant to the discussion if you accept that the problem is that too many people want to get to Australia by boat - as opposed to the problem of vast numbers of people needing protection against their home countries. The real problem cannot immediately be solved. Not that we are making any effort to solve it. If you really want to stop deaths at sea, lift carrier sanctions. But we won’t do that, because we’re not trying to stop deaths at sea at all, we’re trying to stop people from getting here.

    The sad reality is, while the world is what it is and there is no safe pathway to protection witihim reasonable timeframes, people are going to do desperate things, and people are going to die. It’s not ok. But it doesn’t justify gratuitous cruelty. Truly working on a regional solution instead of simply now to stop ‘people smugglers’ may not prevent all deaths at sea - but it will prevent people being tortured and murdered while in Australian custody.

  • 22
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    Chris Hartwell, if you think the “average voter” is uninformed, where do you think the “political class” gets its information? Our various media could easily cook their stories from raw ingredients organically grown. Instead, they choose to feed on lollies and cake like we do and serve it up fully digested, homogenised and pasteurised, just as we like it.
    CML, does blaming the Greens constitute some sort of defense against the accusation all Australians now face? We, all of us, elected a government which clearly stated it would do whatever it takes to stop the boats. It has done exactly as Labor would have done - ramp up the border security issue until the boats stopped - only ramp it up harder and faster and out of sight, regardless of the feelings of our neighbours, just to make the ‘problem’ go away as fast as possible. There is nothing the Greens could have done in September 2013 to prevent the Australian voting public from electing a government which would go in hard on asylum seekers on boats. Both major parties were going to do it - offshore processing, mandatory detention, no advantage, no settlement in Australia. If you voted in the House of Reps election then your two-party-preferred vote would ultimately have ended up with Labor or the Coalition - no matter who you gave your first preference to. Clearly you wouldn’t vote for the Greens even though they had/have a policy, on the table, to end offshore processing. You clearly want to have offshore processing (in Malaysia or somewhere) but you haven’t outlined how the electorate can organise bipartisan support for that - let alone the selling of such a policy to the apparently callous and indifferent Australian public. Just saying or wishing it won’t make mandatory detention in another country any prettier. It’s not the Greens fault, it’s our fault. Own it!

  • 23
    MJPC
    Posted Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    This whole Manus island situation is a total fiasco. Todays revelation that, on the second riot, the locals entered the camp for a bit of biffo using machete’s and other edged weapons sounds like it just developed into a free for all.
    In the USSR Gulags they put recalcitrants in the cooler, in Gulag Manus expect a harsher penalty.

  • 24
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    Is Morrison using Reith’s or Howard’s old fire-wall to keep him from the truth, so he can keep “peddling in ignorance”?

  • 25
    SteveH
    Posted Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    While I have no love at all for Scott Morrison, I watched the insiders interview and to say Morrison ‘sniggered’ about the student’s suicide is really overstating the facts. It is counterproductive to say so if untrue. Just because others portray emotive language as factual and to muddle the issues, it is no reason to join them.

  • 26
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    He didn’t snigger but I don’t know why he’d think Cassidy was asking “if the student couldn’t have been treated some other way” - the reason he was in that detention? I thought the suicide was the point of the question.
    That he was being a bit cute, throwing out a bit of a red herring?
    Not the first time he’s played dumb.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...