If you weren’t put to sleep by its Hallmark rhetoric of “humanity”, this week’s UN summit on refugees seemed less like a greeting card than it did a game of Crazy Eights. Here, world leaders convened to discard the kinds of asylum seekers they didn’t want — I’ll swap you some Muslims for some Central Americans — while feigning concern for the drowned bodies of toddlers.
These powerful players did agree to pick up 360,000 lives, although Australia did not increase intake and just threw a little embarrassed change at a pile of more than 60 million. What all failed to do, however, was meaningfully address the cause of all this heartbreak. That would mean looking in the mirror.
Obama made much of Alan Kurdi, “that little boy” who “could be our son or our grandson”. He made nothing at all of his own nation’s culpability in this and other deaths. “That little boy”, a little boy who should have been hearing stories about the wine-dark sea and not dying in it, did not just happen to find his way into the Aegean. It wasn’t a supernatural monster, but US policy of the past few decades that drew him to his death.
But when it comes to speaking of asylum seekers, either at this elite level or in informal conversation, we in the West have come to take this very Christian view: people flee their nations due to some sort of inevitable force. If, like Obama, you’re a liberal and you keep your language nice, you take a sort of Matthew view of the whole thing and you just shrug and you say that evil things will always happen and that the destitute will always be with us. If, like Trump, you’re a crude nativist, you give that evil a name. You call it Islam.
It’s not god, the devil or any particular religion that claimed the life of That Little Boy, and millions of others. It was, in very great part, the work of the world’s only remaining superpower. The US may not have printed the propaganda for ISIS as it did for its future Taliban foes, but it wrote their emergence all the same. In his brief moments between racist Vaudevillian skits, even Trump gets the pivotal role of the US in the creation of this force right.
In Australian media and political life, we have come to adopt the same views on asylum as can be seen in this international conversation. Which is to say, we no longer stop to address the catastrophe at its source but we see it as either, as per Trump, evil or, as per Obama, inevitable.
Whether one is of a “stop the boats” or a “let them all come” view, one fails to address the reason for the unsteady motion of the boats, which should either be stopped or welcomed.
Plenty of good people have written about why Australia’s hard cultural right are wrong to fear asylum seekers, so there is little need to restate here how persons fleeing conflict are far less likely to engage in criminal activity, etc, than those born here. You can say all you want that asylum seekers pose no threat and promise a great source of labour, but it doesn’t matter. After 15 years of non-stop Muslim securitisation talk, the fear many citizens have acquired, most volubly from the Howard and Abbott governments, will take a generation to reverse; not reason and not Obama-style humanitarian talk will undo this damage in a hurry. The obfuscation, that started with the terrible lies of 2001, was pretty thorough.
It was an obfuscation so thorough, according to yesterday’s much-reported Essential data, that even 34% of Greens voters fancy a ban on Muslim immigration. Greens voters. Those nice knowledge-class people much more likely than the rest of the general population to post candles on their Instagram for the people who have suffered in Manus and Nauru.
But the thing about Greens voters is that they seek most often to “light the dark” only for people currently in Australian detention centres, and not for those millions fleeing conflict and persecution, so often the result of US foreign policy. Greens voters may have a lot more compassion than those who prefer to give their vote to the anti-immigration right. But they have just as little reason.
A Greens voter is likely to believe what Obama says he does: that the refugee crisis is a “test of our humanity”. Actually, it’s a test of our complicity with US foreign policy. When a Greens voter says “not in my name”, it indicates that their views have been just as obfuscated by Muslim securitisation propaganda as have those of the hard cultural right.
It’s not about “my name”. Nor is it about “my humanity”. It’s surely about a commitment to building prosperity and peace in the regions from which people flee. But not since the mass demonstrations of 2003 against the Iraq War, just two years into the local securitisation of Muslims, has there been any meaningful protest against the reasons for the refugee crisis. Now, if you don’t say “stop the boats”, all you can say is “let them come”, and if you were to propose that maybe they would prefer to stay home — and most of us would — then you’ll probably have a fight with a Greens voter.
My own view on the matter of asylum intake is fairly old-timey: we make a mess, we clean it up. It was this former national sense of moral obligation to victims of a war in which we had participated that eventually pushed Malcolm Fraser — and he did need to be pushed — to accept Vietnamese refugees. But this impulse is now missing from our national conversation. Even among Greens voters.
In Australia, we either have an Old Testament view of opposition to the devil, or a New Testament view that the destitute will always be with us. At worst, we are like Trump and fearful of others, whom we see as some sort of undifferentiated evil force best left to perish. At best, we are like Obama, and we think only of refugee resettlement as a “test of our humanity”, which is not the same thing at all as accepting their humanity. They serve to make us look good. Either way, the reasons for the terrible push are obfuscated by sentiment.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think it’s time to go beyond “stop the boats” and “let them all stay” and consider our complicity in all this terror.
Oh Helen – such sense! and yet as both a Greens voter and someone who marched against the 1993 Iraq war (you could see what was going to happen back then) I venture to suggest that the extremely narrow representation of issues is down to the numbskulls of the MSM. Adam Bandt has made the same points. Keep up the struggle girl!
Refugee laws are very simple, they are legally binding and set out in the refugee convention and protocol along with the covenant on civil and political rights, the universal declaration of human rights, the rights of the child and the convention against torture.
All people have the right to seek asylum, no nation has the right to refoule anyone or return them to danger.
But the whinge about boats drives me insane as everyone also has the right to sail anywhere they like under the law of the sea innocent passage laws, which also states that no state actor has any right to interfere until 12 nm from shore or a may day is issued.
Australia lets them drown to suit us then claims we have to torture those who don’t by dumping them in prisons in other nations – under Geneva conventions it’s illegal to move POW’s from one nation to another but the racist west seem to think it’s ok to do that with refugees fleeing the wars we largely started or support.
The racist Australian media blame whoever is the PM of the day, they never, ever think about the 9 new western inspired and supported wars since 2001.
well said Marilyn
When the electorate has the capacity to understand that it’s time to go beyond “stop the boats” and “let them all stay” and insists that each elected Federal representative demands of Government to invest resources towards the completion of regional arrangements within the Bali Process and Australia’s South Asia and South East Asia neighbours, we will be closer to extinguishing the current polarising debate on Australia’s treatment and management of asylum seekers and refugees. The enduring solution lies with a continuing effort towards building protected regional pathways and transit safe haven waiting areas closer to the countries of origin within the South Asia and South East Asia region, where mandatory processing and not mandatory detention is the key. The Asia Dialogue on Forced and Irregular Migration, in which Australia is a participant, is currently working towards building deliberate and incremental cooperation and collaboration to establish such an architecture that will remove the need for asylum seekers and refugees to contemplate travel by sea in the first instance. It will also substantially remove the need for those genuinely fleeing persecution from Iran, Afghanistan (Hazaras), Pakistan and Sri Lanka (Tamils) to engage with traffickers, humanitarian travel agents and corrupt civil servants to obtain fraudulent travel documents. This is where the focus of Government activity should be from now and into the future. It should not be in offshore detention post arrival as a deterrent or in seeking resettlement in other countries.
In March of 2014, Crikey published my following article which may suggest a simplistic approach, however, as we should all be well aware, the problem is one of great regional sensitivity and complexity which has not been assisted by Australia’s unilateral actions in boat turn backs in recent years.
https://uat.crikey.com.au/2014/03/06/the-indian-solution-how-a-subcontinent-strategy-would-save-lives-and-money/
There is not enough voice being given to this long term regional solution which must now be coming from within the community to drive the change of the political focus. Current campaigns and movements aimed at changing the narrative and the conversation on forced and irregular migration in Australia may go some way to developing an informed, cosmopolitan thinking community and empowering the electorate to take the lead.
Thanks. I look forward to (re) reading.
OK, so you set up a transit centre in India or somewhere… next, the difficult part: in transit to where? There are 20 million or so genuine refugees. There just aren’t enough resettlement places for them.
Here you go again, it’s someone else’s problem right? Out of sight and out of mind. Trouble with the regional nonsense Australia keeps peddling is that the region is not the problem, they cope with 8 million refugees while we whinge about a few thousand.
I hadn’t realised how simple the solution was – just solve all the conflict in the areas these people are fleeing. Well done, Helen 🙂
I did not suggest that the matter was simple. My single “policy prescription” was to work toward rebuilding, rather than detonating, those regions. Which is a view derived from a pretty basic understanding of statecraft, and not some pie-in-the-sky idea about ramming flowers on drones, or whatever.
The only aim here is to return our focus to conflict.
If we stopped bombing whole nations to bits there would be less refugees, that is the fact that so many don’t want to know.
The brainwashed masses in Australia think it’s all about us and whoever is the PM of the day can fix it.
Fewer, Marilyn. But it would hardly stop those from Iran, Sri Lanka, Eritrea, Bangladesh, Myanmar…. need I go on?
“When a Greens voter says “not in my name”, it indicates that their views have been just as obfuscated by Muslim securitisation propaganda as have those of the hard cultural right.” Huh!! I am a Greens voter who says ‘not in my name’ and my views are uninfluenced by ‘muslim securitization propaganda’ (why does HR find it necessary to use such desperately contorted language). In my case ‘not in my name’ refers to the unconscionable torture of indefinitely confining a couple of thousand genuine refugees whose only mistake was to believe that Australia would honor their legal obligations and show compassion for their plight. What has that got to do with ‘muslim securitization propaganda’?
No thinking Australian denies that the refugee problem is complex (HR seems to think we need reminding). Perhaps not enough of us are aware of the contribution of US foreign policy to this problem but by promoting a focus on one of the the root causes (only one of them) rather than our heartless response to Australia’s tiny share of the monstrous and exponentially expanding global refugee crisis, HR sets up a false dichotomy. We can of course recognize both issues, partial cause (US foreign policy) and local effects (Manus, Christmas island and Nauru) simultaneously.
We have no control over the former. Surely HR doesn’t believe that Australia withdrawing military support for US stance in middle east would in any way alter that or lessen the conflict or the flow of refugees from the region. She has apparently forgotten the role of the Russians in that part of the world. We can however change the latter, which is what Greens voters that I know have in mind when they say about this issue, ‘not in my name’.
Hi. I used the term “securitisation” because this is the (only) word in English that describes the practice of state actors making certain persons a security matter.
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0091.xml
It’s a useful word in wide usage in foreign policy analysis. I understand that you may not have encountered it before. Your lack of familiarity does not make mine an obfuscating word choice. Think of it as an opportunity to Google a really handy word. Or, if yiu prefer, just a chance to dislike this article more fully.
Good work being immune to state propaganda. Wish I could make the same confident claim.
I’d say that making the focus about oneself (“not in my name”) is ethically bankrupt and politically ineffective. But I already have.