Every time I think that this government cannot sink any lower I'm in for an unpleasant surprise. Kevin Andrews' comments about African refugees are as low as they come, but as the election looms closer and no credible excuse for the extremes of wedge politics is found, the government is sure to come up with more and more extreme attempts to re-create its Tampa "success".
Andrews claims that the government reduced the African humanitarian migrants intake because they have "additional challenges" integrating. It's a real problem you see. No matter what we do those bloody African refugees still have black skin, dark eyes, lack blond hair, some of them speak with an accent and many can't even name the birthday and star sign of Sir Donald Bradman. That's just not good enough, that's un-Australian. Whatever we do, we can't make them exactly like us, goddamn it!
But sarcasm aside, Andrews' argument for cutting African intake is that:
"We know that they have on average low levels of education, lower levels of education than almost any other group of refugees that have come to Australia. We know that many of them, if not most of them, have spent up to a decade in refugee camps and they've spent much of their lives in very much a war-torn, conflicted situation."
Perhaps little Kev was away sick when they taught the meaning of "humanitarian" at school, because what he is saying is that precisely the factors that call for humanitarian intervention are the factors that are used to reduce humanitarian intake. The fact that African refugees are more disadvantaged than others has become the reason for doing less to redress that disadvantage.
This perverse reasoning turns the rationale for humanitarian programs on its head, it takes the humanity out of humanitarian migration. Rather than focusing on human welfare, as humanitarian ideals demand, Andrews' approach suggests we should take the "easier" refugees, the ones who are more like "us". Forget about those most at need. Don't you see the attractiveness of that argument? They are black, aren't they? They are foreign, they are strange, they are refugees. If you don't think of them as humans you don't have to worry about humanitarianism!
October 4th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Human rights, Howard government, Refugees and asylum-seekers |
one comment
The Howard government has reportedly rejected the UN request to contribute troops to an international force for Darfur. Since February 2003 the genocidal conflict in Sudan has claimed as many as 450,000 lives (although the figure of 200,000 is often utilised) and created some 2.5 million refugees.
One might question the adequacy of the UN and international community response to the conflict as well as the adequacy of UN response to genocide generally (the genocide in Rwanda being the prime example). However, the Austrian government has not claimed that the proposed UN peacekeeping mission is likely to be ineffective or is too little too late - it rejected the request for troops because Australian Defence Force (ADF) has other commitments.
According to Howard, contributing to the UN force to stop genocide would require pulling ADF personnel from their other engagements. These "commitments" reportedly include: 1100 troops in East Timor, 970 in Afghanistan, 1575 in Iraq and 450 "monitoring Australia's maritime approaches".
The government previously described the genocide in Darfur as "one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters" and in 2004 Downer stated that "We shouldn't just turn our backs and say that doesn't matter", but talk it easy, action on the other hand requires true commitment.
The government prefers to have 450 troops making sure that no refugees from Sudan arrive on the Australian mainland (that's what "monitoring Australia's maritime approaches" means) rather than help put an end to the crisis that is forcing people to seek refuge. It prefers to contribute over one and a half thousand troops to a war that was based on lies and has already claimed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in Iraq, rather than help to put an end to genocide which may have claimed as many as half a million lives.
If the refusal of the UN request is motivated by doubts as to the efficacy of the proposed UN action or by an Australian equivalent of the Mogadishu factor (ie not willing to risk Australian lives in an oversees conflict), then it should say so. If it is a question of priorities - what can be more important than putting a stop to the ultimate evil of genocide?
June 16th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, World politics, Human rights, Refugees and asylum-seekers, United Nations, Darfur |
no comments
It should come as no surprise that the Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has refused a plea from an injured Sri Lankan asylum-seeker (the man has shrapnel embedded in his head and suffers from psychological problems) to apply for on-shore protection from Australia (where he has 20 relatives to support him), rather than be shipped to Nauru, which has become Australia's dumping ground for its unwanted refugees.
The Minister had a discretion to intervene on humanitarian grounds, but humanity has long ceased to be a feature of Australia's immigration system. We are so frightened of the trickle of desperate people who manage to beat the odds and arrive at our shores that we have determined not to see them as human. Humanitarian grounds have no meaning when their supposed beneficiaries have been stripped of their humanity, by unrelenting demonisation and fearmongering and by enforced separation.
It is so much easier not to recognise the humanity of someone you can't see or hear. Middle of the desert detention camps just didn't do the job. People who wanted to look could still glimpse the desperation behind the barbed wire. They could still find out about the water cannons and the tear gas, the solitary confinement and the children driven to self-mutilation. So a more distant place needed to be found, one that those pesky cameras and human rights lawyers would have trouble accessing. The physical separation had to be made so complete that no shred of humanity remained. Out of sight, out of mind.
Humanitarian grounds will not breach that isolation for its precise purpose is to deny humanity. Even if someone is grievously injured. Even if in Australia they would have the support of their relatives as they wait for their visa. Even if, as turns out in the vast majority of cases, the asylum seekers are genuine refugees.
Do we really feel so unsure of ourselves, so insecure, so irrationally fearful of outsiders that we can empathise with people we see in television broadcasts from the other side of the world, but will kill all empathy and all compassion in our hearts should these very people arrive on our doorstep?
June 12th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Human rights, Refugees and asylum-seekers |
no comments
RSS
