Democracy Tested

The only defence that we, the people, have against an arrogant leader…

Promises, Promises, Promises

What's a promise or, more specifically, an election promise? Is it a…

Coming to Terms with Floods of Challenges

By Denis Bright Finton Magee’s Street Art on the railway underpass at Merivale…

Victorian Election: Liberals under siege from extremist religious…

The Victorian election is a mess. This is the product of the…

Silicon Valley Fake: Elizabeth Holmes and the Fraudster’s…

It has been one noisy time for the paladins of big tech.…

Opinion Polls OR If I Raced Usain Bolt…

Costello Media told us that the two major parties in the Victorian…

A view of Trump from Down Under

The news that former President Trump would be standing for the position…

Greed is the problem, not workers

Of course, The Australian republished Andy Kessler’s ridiculous Wall Street Journal column,…

«
»
Facebook

Refugee Conundrums: Resettlement, the UN and the US-Australia Deal

Having poured scorn and not an indecent amount of bile upon the refugee deal between the Obama administration and Canberra last year, US President Donald Trump was never going to make things easy for the resettlement of various groups held on Nauru and Manus Island.

Repeated emphasis has been made on the issue of how the anti-terrorism regime outlined in the USA Patriot Act disqualifies potential entrants, given the sheer scope of how “support” is defined. This is particularly applicable to the Tamils, numbering some 100, who might have been sympathetic to the cause of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam.[1]

The true sufferers remain the refugees, who continue being shuffled and disposed in a broken international system that Australia insists on further fracturing. (It might be argued, with good grounds, that Australian governments have been instrumental in ensuring its failure).

Another troubling feature of Canberra’s obstinacy lies is its inventive approach to the factual record. Both sides of the political aisle insist that the people-smuggling “market” model must be confronted, with a hammer wielded in determination against its workings. All done in the spirit of humanitarian sensibility, we are told.

Yet Amnesty International has noted instances where members of the Australian navy have paid those very smugglers to move their human cargo away from Australian waters. The model, in other words, thrives under the colluding eyes of states who prefer borders and regulation over humans and rights.

The tail in Canberra has continued to twist on this score. For one, where would those rejected by the US vetting process go? Even if some had passed muster under those “extreme vetting” procedures, what would it do to those with ties to Australia?

Disputes have emerged. One backer for the US-Australia resettlement deal was the United Nations through its various organs dealing with refugees. But conflicting claims between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, and the Turnbull government about the resettling those captives on Manus Island and Nauru have surfaced.

We are long accustomed to the usual charge and counter-charge in these squabbles over how best to use and abuse a refugee debate. Enter milksop Grandi: “Australia’s policy of offshore processing in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, which denies access to asylum in Australia for refugees arriving by sea without a valid visa, has caused extensive, avoidable suffering for far too long.”

Grandi then gets to the crux: an explanation as to why the UNHCR, not exactly the most persuasive organisation, committed to the Australian-US agreement on resettling refugees. “We agreed to do so on the clear understanding that vulnerable refugees with close family ties in Australia would ultimately be allowed to settle there.”

Cue Grandi’s perplexed response to being “informed by Australia that it refuses to accept even these refugees, and that they, along with the others on Nauru and Papua New Guinea, have been informed that their only option is to remain where they are or to be transferred to Cambodia or the United States.”

Canberra’s UNHCR mission was also baffled. “We’ve maintained from the beginning,” claimed Catherine Stubberfield, “that allowing people with close family being able to come to Australia is a minimum, and unfortunately that’s not being honoured.”[2] According to Stubberfield, this understanding would prevail even of those accepted by US authorities.

UN Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Volker Turk, also added his name to the inventory of the deluded that families with ties to Australia would be prioritised. “We were hoping very much, based on the understanding, that Australia would be part of the solution, that we would find an agreement that would allow them to settle in Australia.”

Why Grandi and the UNHCR grandees should be puzzled is itself puzzling. The official policy from Canberra on refugees has been well minted for some years. In the dying days of an election campaign, a desperate Labor prime minister, Kevin Rudd, turned over a leaf on countering naval arrivals by declaring that any unprocessed individuals heading to Australia by boat would never be permitted settlement on the mainland.

A more reactionary, but consistently brutal Prime Minister Tony Abbott merely militarised the response, cloaking it with a secrecy that any authoritarian leader would be pleased with. The “never settle in Australia” approach persists with grim determination.

Last week, Rudd attempted to throw a dose of humanitarianism on the policy by insisting that, when he re-commenced the offshore processing system in July 2013, he had only intended a 12-month limit on operating the Manus Island centre. Rudd remains immaculately disingenuous on this score.

What we have on record is a clear case of double narratives, one spun for political convenience to an electorate hardened to Fortress Australia, and to diplomats charged with negotiating the resettlement program. Caught between two chairs, those on Manus and Nauru will fall between them, doomed to a comical and vicious solution that will see those rejected by the United States and Australia find testy homes in third, vastly inappropriate states.

 

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/tamil-asylumseekers-on-manus-nauru-set-to-be-excluded-from-us-deal/news-story/ad5ed5a2471a845180a8125a944802e3

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-24/unhcr-says-federal-government-agreed-resettle-refugees-us-deal/8738540

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 760 total views,  8 views today

4 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Glenn Barry

    I’d just like to thank, the unprosecuted war criminal, John Howard for this perpetual political toxicity and revolting blemish on our national reputation

  2. Michael Taylor

    Couldn’t agree more, Glenn.

  3. jim

    Howard was first to send refugees off shore but Rudd wears the blame, good one MSM.

  4. Kyran

    Just when you think this ‘political football’ couldn’t get any worse.

    “A group of approximately 30 refugees from El Salvador currently being held in Costa Rica will move to Australia in the next couple of months, the two sources said, with a second group of a similar size to follow shortly afterwards.”

    “None of the refugees on PNG’s Manus Island or Nauru – mostly men from the Middle East and South Asia – have been approved to move to the United States yet. Earlier this month, US officials halted screening interviews after the United States reached its annual refugee intake cap.”

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/25/australia-accept-first-central-american-refugees-under-us-deal-sources

    So, under the new deal, we are accepting politics as normal.
    “Feck off, we’re full” say the American’s. We have exceeded our intake.
    “Feck off, we’re full” say the Australians. Except for those the American’s want to get rid of.
    This is not politics. This is not football. And ‘people’, real life human being’s, cannot be regarded as a facsimile of either. Whether it be a rather toothless tiger (the UN), or a government of little value (America or Australia), at some point the question must be asked.
    When does humanity surpass politics?
    Thank you Dr Kampmark, and, by default, Mr Mills.
    Vale Dr Yunupingu, whose humanity (and voice) surpassed so much.
    Take care

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: