tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/pacific-solution-13624/articlesPacific Solution – The Conversation2022-07-21T01:30:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1862942022-07-21T01:30:22Z2022-07-21T01:30:22Z3 types of denial that allow Australians to feel OK about how we treat refugees<p>As one of its first acts in government, the newly elected Labor government <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-24/labor-turns-back-election-day-asylum-seeker-boat-arrival/101095322">turned back a boat</a> of Sri Lankan asylum seekers trying to enter Australia. </p>
<p>Labor has <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/albanese-government-turns-around-its-first-asylum-seeker-boat-20220524-p5ao2y.html">vowed to continue Operation Sovereign Borders</a>, including boat turnbacks and offshore detention. This is concerning. Not only do <a href="https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/refugee-rights-policy-wrongs/">turnbacks violate international law</a>, but offshore detention has resulted in <a href="https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/AUS/INT_CAT_NGO_AUS_18683_E.pdf">torture and cruel and inhuman treatment</a> of refugees. </p>
<p>Even more concerning is the lack of criticism Labor has received for continuing offshore detention and turnbacks. Apart from being condemned by <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/albanese-government-turns-around-its-first-asylum-seeker-boat-20220524-p5ao2y.html">human rights groups</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-24/labor-turns-back-election-day-asylum-seeker-boat-arrival/101095322">minor political parties</a>, Labor’s refugee policies appear to have gone without much comment from a large part of the Australian public. </p>
<p>As I found in <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jrs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jrs/feac041/6646968?login=true">my new research paper</a>, the Australian government has used three forms of denial, creating physical and psychological distance between itself and refugees.</p>
<p>This allows the federal government to promote illegal and harmful policies while proclaiming to still be upholding human rights.</p>
<h2>Creating indifference</h2>
<p>Human rights abuses in offshore detention have been <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa12/002/2013/en/">well documented</a>. </p>
<p>On Manus Island (in Papua New Guinea) and Nauru, refugees have <a href="https://law.stanford.edu/publications/communique-to-the-office-of-the-prosecutor-of-the-international-criminal-court-under-article-15-of-the-rome-statute-the-situation-in-nauru-and-manus-island-liability-for-crimes-against-humanity/">faced torture</a>, inhumane detention, overcrowding, violence from guards, sexual assault and rape, and mental harm. Children as young as nine have suffered <a href="https://msf.org.au/sites/default/files/attachments/indefinite_despair_4.pdf">severe depression and attempted to commit suicide</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/2/">According to the latest data by the Refugee Council</a>, 112 people remain on Nauru and just over 100 people are on Manus Island. Although New Zealand will <a href="https://theconversation.com/aus-nz-refugee-deal-is-a-bandage-on-a-failed-policy-its-time-to-end-offshore-processing-180241">now resettle</a> many of them in the coming years, Nauru detention centre will continue to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/24/australia-signs-deal-with-nauru-to-keep-asylum-seeker-detention-centre-open-indefinitely">remain open indefinitely</a>.</p>
<iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/60087127b9687759d637bade/6229bddd9ece8600127d4f71" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="190px"></iframe>
<p>How can Australia continue to <a href="https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/human-rights">promote itself as upholding human rights</a>, while at the same time maintain such policies? </p>
<p>One answer is that offshore detention has created indifference to the suffering of refugees. Australia’s policy framework has produced what the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has called “<a href="https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N20/188/03/PDF/N2018803.pdf?OpenElement">moral disengagement</a>”. This involves “the self-deceptive denial of reality” by denying the wrongfulness of, responsibility for, or occurrence of, human rights violations. </p>
<p>These “self-deceptive” strategies reduce moral dilemmas that come from violating human rights norms.</p>
<p><a href="https://academic.oup.com/jrs/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jrs/feac041/6646968?login=true">My research</a> found Australian federal governments have used three forms of denial to push refugees out of sight and out of mind – denial of responsibility, denial of fact, and denial of wrongdoing.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cruel-costly-and-ineffective-australias-offshore-processing-asylum-seeker-policy-turns-9-166014">Cruel, costly and ineffective: Australia's offshore processing asylum seeker policy turns 9</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3 types of denial</h2>
<p><strong>Denying responsibility</strong> </p>
<p>The government has denied responsibility over refugees in offshore detention by denying it has jurisdiction. The term “jurisdiction” <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/au/academic/subjects/law/human-rights/access-asylum-international-refugee-law-and-globalisation-migration-control?format=PB">is different</a> from sovereign territory. A state can have jurisdiction outside of its sovereign territory when it <a href="https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22fulltext%22:%5B%22HIRSI%20JAMAA%20AND%20OTHERS%20V.%20ITALY%22%5D,%22documentcollectionid2%22:%5B%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-109231%22%5D%7D">exercises effective control over others</a>. </p>
<p>Showing that a country has jurisdiction over others is important. It can help hold states accountable for human rights abuses and establish responsibility for those in its care. </p>
<p>The Australian government has <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Manus_Island/Report">argued</a> that PNG and Nauru – which aren’t part of Australia – have jurisdiction over the detention facilities and the refugees in them. It claims all Australia does is provide financial and material support.</p>
<p>Such arguments make it difficult to hold Australia accountable. But they are also incorrect. <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Regional_processing_Nauru/Regional_processing_Nauru/Final_Report">A Senate inquiry</a>, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Regional_processing_Nauru/Regional_processing_Nauru/Submissions">UN High Commissioner for Refugees</a>, and <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/02/australia-appalling-abuse-neglect-refugees-nauru">human rights groups</a>, among others, have argued Australia exercises effective control and shares jurisdiction with Nauru and PNG. </p>
<p>Denying jurisdiction creates physical and psychological distance between itself and refugees, helping to create indifference. By denying responsibility, human rights abuses become someone else’s problem.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1512278034954571776"}"></div></p>
<p><strong>Denying fact</strong> </p>
<p>A second key strategy is denial of fact. The Australian government, along with the governments of Nauru and PNG, has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-37675003">denied human rights abuses</a> and made it hard to find out what occurs in offshore detention. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/NauruandManusRPCs/Report">Human rights monitors</a> and <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Regional_processing_Nauru/Regional_processing_Nauru/Final_Report">journalists</a> have been restricted or denied access to offshore detention.</p>
<p>Staff have been <a href="https://law.stanford.edu/publications/communique-to-the-office-of-the-prosecutor-of-the-international-criminal-court-under-article-15-of-the-rome-statute-the-situation-in-nauru-and-manus-island-liability-for-crimes-against-humanity/">threatened with prosecution</a> under confidentiality agreements if they speak publicly about detention treatment. </p>
<p>Operation Sovereign Borders has also been shrouded in <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/02/australia-appalling-abuse-neglect-refugees-nauru">secrecy</a>. For example, it was common for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/21/scott-morrison-breaks-own-rule-against-commenting-on-on-water-matters-to-confirm-asylum-boat-intercepted">Coalition</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/10/peter-dutton-invokes-on-water-secrecy-over-claim-of-payments-to-boat-crew">ministers</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3887267.htm">border force officials</a> to refuse to answer questions in the media about “on water matters”. </p>
<p>As Peter Young, the former mental health director of IHMS, the medical provider in immigration detention, <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa12/4934/2016/en/">stated</a>: “Secrecy is necessary because these places are designed to damage”.</p>
<p>These policies have made it difficult to know what occurs in offshore detention. They also create doubt about whether such harm is even happening at all.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/95HgnR2gAXU?wmode=transparent&start=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><strong>Denying wrongdoing</strong> </p>
<p>Along with “stopping the boats”, the government has argued offshore detention has been necessary to save lives at sea.</p>
<p>When former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Méndez criticised Australia for violating the UN Convention against Torture in 2015, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tony-abbott-australians-sick-of-being-lectured-to-by-united-nations-after-report-finds-antitorture-breach-20150309-13z3j0.html">stated</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The most humanitarian, the most decent, the most compassionate thing you can do is stop these boats because hundreds, we think about 1200 in fact, drowned at sea during the flourishing of the people smuggling trade under the former government.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a key strategy of self-deception. By arguing the policy is saving lives, it focuses attention away from the harm refugees suffer, to the humanitarian goal of “saving lives”.</p>
<p>Moral dilemmas about torture or ill treatment are pushed aside, and so are feelings of wrongdoing. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-temporary-visa-system-is-unfair-expensive-impractical-and-inconsistent-heres-how-the-new-government-could-fix-it-185870">Australia's temporary visa system is unfair, expensive, impractical and inconsistent. Here's how the new government could fix it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Challenging indifference</h2>
<p>Key to ending this illegal and harmful policy is to challenge these self-deceptive strategies that have produced moral disengagement. </p>
<p>Other countries, such as the UK, are following in Australia’s footsteps by <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-seals-deal-with-rwanda-to-offshore-asylum-migrant-seekers/">introducing offshore detention</a> for asylum seekers. This means challenging strategies that deny reality – and widening our circle of empathy – is more urgent than ever.</p>
<p>It’s indifference that’s helping to maintain offshore detention. And it’s this indifference that needs to be challenged to both respect international law and uphold the rights and dignity of refugees.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186294/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamal has received funding from the Australia-Germany JRC Scheme (UA-DAAD) and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).</span></em></p>Australia’s offshore detention policies have helped to produce indifference to the suffering of refugees. Pushing refugees out of sight, and out of mind, has now placed them beyond moral concern.Jamal Barnes, Lecturer, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1802412022-04-07T03:50:45Z2022-04-07T03:50:45ZAus-NZ refugee deal is a bandage on a failed policy. It’s time to end offshore processing<p>Australia has finally accepted New Zealand’s offer to settle some of the refugees from the <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/factsheet_offshore_processing_overview.pdf">offshore processing</a> regime – about nine years after it was first made in 2013.</p>
<p>The NZ deal will provide certainty for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/24/australia-agrees-450-refugees-can-be-resettled-in-new-zealand-nine-years-after-deal-first-offered">450 people</a> who have been in limbo, many for more than a decade.</p>
<p>But in the March 24 <a href="https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/KarenAndrews/Pages/australia-new-zealand-resettlement-arrangement.aspx">announcement</a>, Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews made clear the deal does not change Australia’s <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-and-new-zealand-reach-refugee-resettlement-agreement/20vyv2d8w">hard-line approach</a>.</p>
<p>This makes the deal a bandage on a <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf">failed policy</a> that continues to haemorrhage cash, destroy lives and erode the international system for refugee protection.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-finally-accepts-deal-with-new-zealand-to-resettle-refugees-179949">Morrison government finally accepts deal with New Zealand to resettle refugees</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who is – and isn’t – included in the NZ deal?</h2>
<p>The original offer, made by the then NZ Prime Minister John Key in 2013, was refused by the Australian government until now. The Coalition government claimed the deal could be a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/01/decision-to-bring-children-from-nauru-an-admission-of-failure-by-government">pull factor</a>” for asylum seekers coming by boat to Australia. </p>
<p>Under the agreement, NZ will settle up to 150 of Australia’s “offshore processing” refugees per year for three years. These refugees arrived in Australia by sea between 2012 and 2014 and were sent to Nauru or Manus Island “offshore processing” detention centres. </p>
<p>The deal can include the <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us-subsite/files/population-and-number-of-people-resettled.pdf">112 people</a> who are in Nauru or those temporarily in Australia under offshore processing arrangements.</p>
<p>Some <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2022/3/623a66584/unhcr-news-comment-on-the-australia-new-zealand-refugee-deal.html">1,100</a> people have been returned temporarily to Australia, mostly for medical treatment. They mostly live in the community with <a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/potential-return-of-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum-to-nauru-and-png-proof-of-policy-failure/">no support and insecure visa status</a> but some remain in detention.</p>
<p>Those already being considered for settlement to another country, such as the United States or Canada, aren’t eligible for the NZ program. </p>
<p>More than 100 men who remain in Papua New Guinea aren’t included in this deal.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1508944829509926915"}"></div></p>
<p>Under current known arrangements, people remaining in PNG could be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/australia-new-zealand-refugee-deal-everything-we-know">referred</a> by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to NZ through its regular refugee programme. </p>
<p>Even after the NZ and US options are exhausted, it’s estimated at least <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/australians-welcome-nzs-generosity-to-refugees-in-offshore-processing/">500 refugees will be without a solution</a>.</p>
<p>And they’re not the only ones. There are some <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Factsheet_Legacy%20Caseload_final.pdf">30,000 people</a> in what’s called the “legacy caseload” who arrived by sea between 2012 and 2014 and weren’t transferred to Nauru and PNG. They remain in Australia subject to harmful measures. They’re stuck in limbo on temporary visas, unable to reunify with family members, and receive <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/urgent-call-government-protect-asylum-seekers-and-refugees">inadequate support</a> to secure housing or health care.</p>
<h2>Australia distorts the global refugee system</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.refworld.org/docid/51af82794.html">Australia has primary responsibility</a> for refugees who seek its protection. The Australian government has repeatedly tried and failed to find countries willing to settle refugees it refuses to protect. It reportedly offered multiple countries, from the Philippines to Kyrgyzstan, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/08/australias-refugee-deal-a-farce-after-us-rejects-all-iranian-and-somali-asylum-seekers">millions of dollars</a> to settle refugees from Australia’s offshore camps – without success.</p>
<p>Resettlement to a third country is an important solution, available to less than 1% of refugees globally whose lives, liberty, safety, health or other fundamental rights are at risk <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/46f7c0ee2.html">in the country where they have sought refuge</a>. This isn’t the case for refugees seeking asylum in Australia, where there’s a well-established asylum system.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1485683266590060548"}"></div></p>
<p>It’s difficult to think of the NZ solution as “resettlement” in its true meaning.</p>
<p>Resettlement places are important to <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2021/6/60d32ba44/un-refugee-agency-releases-2022-resettlement-needs.html">relieve pressure on developing countries</a> that host almost 90% of the world’s refugees. Conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, South Sudan, Afghanistan, plus now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have created a need for resettlement in a third country for almost <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2021/6/60d32ba44/un-refugee-agency-releases-2022-resettlement-needs.html">1.5 million</a> refugees worldwide. Resettlement has been disrupted over the last two years due to COVID, leaving even more people in urgent need.</p>
<p>Under these extraordinary “refugee deals” with the US and NZ, the Australian government is trying to solve a political problem of its own making at the expense of people in desperate need. </p>
<p>Like Australia, the US and NZ offer only a limited number of resettlement spots each year. When these spots go to Australia’s refugees, who are Australia’s responsibility, someone else misses out.</p>
<h2>Continuing damage</h2>
<p>This is Australia’s second go at offshore processing. Its first iteration, the “Pacific Solution”, lasted from 2001 until 2008. The second commenced in 2012 and continues.</p>
<p>Offshore processing remains costly. Australian taxpayers have spent, on average, around <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf#page=14&zoom=auto,-135,786">A$1 billion per year</a> to maintain offshore processing since 2014.</p>
<p>This is despite a dramatic drop in the number of people held in Nauru and PNG. At the peak in April 2014, Australia detained a total of 2,450 people. By December 2021, there were <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/2/">219 people remaining offshore in Nauru and PNG</a>.</p>
<p>People transferred to Manus Island and Nauru suffered mandatory and indefinite detention in harsh conditions. Their treatment has been called out by the United Nations repeatedly as <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/united-nations-observations.htm">cruel and inhuman</a> and described by Amnesty International as <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018835563/amnesty-international-celebrates-deal-for-nz-to-take-refugees">torture</a>.</p>
<p>The abuse of men, women and children in offshore processing centres has been thoroughly documented in a <a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b743d9_e4413cb72e1646d8bd3e8a8c9a466950.pdf">communiqué</a> to the International Criminal Court, <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/43063/documents/791#page=27&zoom=auto,-134,1">parliamentary inquiries</a> and domestic legal challenges.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1468346008090382337"}"></div></p>
<p>Australia’s offshore processing sets a bad regional precedent for <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160913_Pathways_to_Protection.pdf#page=20&zoom=page-fit,-625,841">refugee protection in Southeast Asia</a> and beyond.</p>
<p>The policy objective of using cruelty as a deterrent to “stop the boats” and “save lives at sea” didn’t work. If boats didn’t arrive, this was due to Australia’s <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf">interception and turnback of boats at sea</a>.</p>
<h2>What needs to change?</h2>
<p>Refugee policy can be <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/principles-australian-refugee-policy">principled</a> and driven by compassion while protecting borders and respecting international law.</p>
<p>Australia should formally end offshore processing. The small number of people still held offshore in Nauru and PNG should be transferred back to Australia. </p>
<p>Everyone who has been subject to the policy since 2012 who doesn’t have a permanent solution could be offered settlement in Australia. This <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2012-2013/pacificsolution">occurred</a> in the first iteration of offshore processing and could happen again.</p>
<p>Money and lives can be saved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180241/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natasha Yacoub is an international refugee law scholar and practitioner, having worked on refugee protection for two decades with the United Nations in conflict and peacetime settings. She is presently a researcher and doctoral candidate at UNSW. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations.</span></em></p>Offshore processing is a failed policy that continues to haemorrhage cash, destroy lives and erode the international system for refugee protection.Natasha Yacoub, International refugee lawyer and scholar, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1720562021-12-31T21:06:41Z2021-12-31T21:06:41ZCabinet papers 2001: how ‘securitisation’ became a mindset to dominate Australian politics for a generation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437663/original/file-20211214-27-1yc8mqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Foote/National Archives of Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>2001 was the final year of the Howard government’s second term in office. </p>
<p>It began with the government on the political defensive, doing poorly in opinion polls, but ended with a third successive victory in November. </p>
<p>Two epic political developments – the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-politics-explainer-the-mv-tampa-and-the-transformation-of-asylum-seeker-policy-74078">Tampa crisis</a>”, in which the government ordered Australian troops to board a foreign vessel carrying rescued asylum seekers to stop them landing on Australian soil, and the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States – were decisive in the government’s re-election.</p>
<p>Tampa and September 11 remained influential factors in Australian politics for the next 20 years. These events drove a decisive turn towards “securitisation” in political discourse and public policy. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-tampa-and-the-national-security-election-of-2001-115143">Issues that swung elections: Tampa and the national security election of 2001</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In a political context, securitisation refers to the systematic transformation of regular public policy matters into security issues. This in turn is used to justify unusual measures as necessary to the survival of the state and safety of its citizens. </p>
<p>In 2001, Australia pivoted into this new securitised mindset. It was partly driven by events but also, to a significant extent, by political choice. </p>
<p>This pivot is evident in the 2001 Cabinet papers, released today by the National Archives of Australia. In them, domestic submissions, free from a securitisation mindset, dominate until Tampa and the September 11 attacks occur.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437666/original/file-20211214-19-1n99m9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437666/original/file-20211214-19-1n99m9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437666/original/file-20211214-19-1n99m9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437666/original/file-20211214-19-1n99m9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437666/original/file-20211214-19-1n99m9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437666/original/file-20211214-19-1n99m9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437666/original/file-20211214-19-1n99m9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The September 11 2001 terrorist attacks, along with the Tampa crisis, would reshape Australian politics for the next two decades.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard Drew/AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The papers show the government developing possible responses to sharply rising asylum-seeker arrivals by sea during the first half of 2001. </p>
<p>This culminated in the so-called “<a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2012-2013/pacificsolution">Pacific Solution</a>” of offshore detention, which unfolded over the last week of August. </p>
<p>Shortly afterwards, the September 11 terrorist attacks occurred. Although unrelated, the two events became fused in popular perception by political design as well as chronological proximity. </p>
<p>Strong support for the Beazley-led Labor opposition eroded under the combined weight of the Tampa and the September 11 attacks. </p>
<p>All of this meant the 2001 “khaki election” was conducted against the backdrop of perceived external threat and military action abroad. The government, in electoral trouble earlier in the year, was returned with effectively the same majority after allowing for a two-seat expansion of the House of Representatives.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437672/original/file-20211214-27-6zuzti.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437672/original/file-20211214-27-6zuzti.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437672/original/file-20211214-27-6zuzti.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437672/original/file-20211214-27-6zuzti.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437672/original/file-20211214-27-6zuzti.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437672/original/file-20211214-27-6zuzti.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437672/original/file-20211214-27-6zuzti.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Strong support for the Labor opposition led by Kim Beazley quickly eroded under the combined weight of Tampa and the September 11 attacks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives of Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Five of the 2001 Cabinet papers directly arise in response to the September 11 attacks. </p>
<p>One of these – “Options for defence enhancement for domestic security”, dated October 2 2001 – is historically significant as a window into a government grappling with a sudden shift in perceived domestic security needs. It also addresses questions about the continuing appropriateness of strategic fundamentals decided on just a year earlier in the <a href="https://defence.gov.au/publications/wpaper2000.PDF">2000 Defence White Paper</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, there is no “Pacific Solution” Cabinet submission nor decision in the 2001 release.</p>
<p>While asylum-seeker policy and Islamic terrorism dominate memories of federal politics in 2001, they do not dominate the 2001 Cabinet papers. </p>
<p>Two-thirds of a year elapsed before September 11 marked the beginning of the new securitised era in Australian and world politics. </p>
<p>Most of the 2001 papers are concerned with domestic policy across a wide range of areas, including many of continuing concern – notably climate change. </p>
<p>The climate policy and energy policy papers in this release are significant.</p>
<p>They show the Howard government had a far more nuanced view on climate change and its significance than any Coalition government since. These papers, along with last year’s, provide context for the Coalition’s proposal of a carbon trading scheme in the run-up to the 2007 election.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-2000-the-coalition-before-climate-denialism-but-on-the-path-to-offshore-detention-151576">Cabinet papers 2000: the Coalition before climate denialism, but on the path to offshore detention</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We can see a coalition Cabinet not yet captured by resource sector interests, expressly constraining its resources minister from the untrammelled promotion of those interests.</p>
<p>The government is seen operating in once familiar co-operative frameworks for national actions with the states. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437675/original/file-20211214-23-1bi8u3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437675/original/file-20211214-23-1bi8u3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437675/original/file-20211214-23-1bi8u3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437675/original/file-20211214-23-1bi8u3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437675/original/file-20211214-23-1bi8u3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437675/original/file-20211214-23-1bi8u3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/437675/original/file-20211214-23-1bi8u3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 2001 papers reveal a far more nuanced view of climate change than any Coalition government since.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives of Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In preparation for a COAG meeting in June, for example, Cabinet in May settled agenda items including a national energy policy framework, a national action plan on salinity, and a proposed ban on human cloning. </p>
<p>The Reconciliation framework was also on the COAG agenda. Cabinet noted that “some state and territory governments had been actively campaign(ing) for a national apology to indigenous Australians”. Cabinet opposed such an apology.</p>
<p>Another paper states the government’s ongoing opposition to a treaty with Indigenous Australians.</p>
<p>Against the backdrop of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it is interesting to note the government sought state agreement through COAG on: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>continued high priority review and revision of national whole-of-government frameworks for the management of a major emergency animal disease outbreak, such as FMD (foot and mouth disease), to be co-ordinated by COAG Senior Officials.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Population policy is another interesting focus in the papers.</p>
<p>The then immigration and multicultural affairs minister, Philip Ruddock, had for some time favoured a higher profile for government-led population policy discussions in Australia. In pursuit of this he meshed discussion of long-term challenges, including an ageing population and declining fertility, with related issues of skilled migration, the workforce participation rate of women and older Australians, and the environmental impact of overall population levels. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/2001-polls-in-review-september-11-influenced-election-outcome-far-more-than-tampa-incident-112139">2001 polls in review: September 11 influenced election outcome far more than Tampa incident</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While Ruddock was a population policy enthusiast, ministerial colleagues were concerned about the political sensitivities of such discussions. Cabinet decided at the beginning of 2001 </p>
<blockquote>
<p>to continue to resist the development of a formal population policy or the setting of long-term population targets.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Coalition’s relative electoral success federally has its roots in political lessons flowing from this pivotal year in contemporary Australian politics. It has continued deriving enormous political dividends from them, while its opponents struggle to come to grips with and negate the potent impact of wedge politics.</p>
<p>Under the Howard government, security and immigration policy were the main, and interrelated, sites for its use. </p>
<p>From Tony Abbott’s ascension to the Liberal leadership onwards, energy policy and climate policy became key additional, interrelated, sites for wedge politics. </p>
<p>The consequences are ongoing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172056/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Wallace has received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The rhetoric and policy focus of the Howard government in the wake of the Tampa crisis and the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 changed dramatically – and the effects are still being felt today.Chris Wallace, Associate Professor, 50/50 By 2030 Foundation, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/343562014-11-20T03:38:43Z2014-11-20T03:38:43ZManifesto for a pogrom: hostility to resettled refugees grows on Nauru<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65057/original/image-20141120-29216-bbndnz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nauru's culture of hospitality once applied to all, including the asylum seekers who arrived in 2001 to a dance of welcome, a tradition depicted on this stamp. Refugee resettlement has changed all that. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Refugees settled on Nauru woke on Monday to find an ominous letter, signed “Youth of Republic of Nauru”, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/17/locals-tell-refugees-to-leave-nauru">had been delivered overnight</a>. Copies had been left at shops, homes, workplaces employing refugees and a restaurant, as well as at <a href="https://theconversation.com/here-the-word-future-is-not-a-word-life-as-a-refugee-on-nauru-30079">Fly Camp</a> where male refugees are held and at the family camp and houses where young unaccompanied refugees live. Copies were thrown over the detention centre fence, erasing the distinction between recognised refugees settled outside and those still in detention under <a href="https://www.dfat.gov.au/issues/people-smuggling-mou.html">an agreement</a> between the Australian and Nauru governments.</p>
<p>The distribution of the letter points to an orchestrated campaign, rather than a spontaneous individual act of intimidation.</p>
<p><a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1416204868394/Youth-of-Republic-of-Nauru-.pdf">The letter</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“… we warn Refugees to Go Away of our country and just to hell with all your concerns if not, get ready for the bad things happening and waiting ahead.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It contains disturbing resentments and accusations:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our women, girls and daughters are having contact with refugees and having affairs with them and we can never see our women having fun with refugees and neglecting locals.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It warns that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… we can see clearly in near future refugees will be the leading and ruling people and will make local community people their slaves.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Such charges are characteristic of hate manifestos designed to mobilise communities against targeted groups. They are recognisable as the grievances that historically inform racist propaganda. The aim is to scapegoat and intimidate target groups and incite violence against them with the objective of removing them from the community.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We warn our Corrupt Government as well Australian Government to take away your rubbish (refugees) and leave our country, otherwise there can be worse situations for refugees as you can see these days.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64950/original/image-20141119-16205-1qvn4ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64950/original/image-20141119-16205-1qvn4ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/64950/original/image-20141119-16205-1qvn4ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64950/original/image-20141119-16205-1qvn4ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64950/original/image-20141119-16205-1qvn4ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64950/original/image-20141119-16205-1qvn4ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64950/original/image-20141119-16205-1qvn4ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/64950/original/image-20141119-16205-1qvn4ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The letter threatening refugee settlers, which was circulated on Nauru.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The reference to "rubbish” articulates precisely the logic of ethnic cleansing.</p>
<p>The phrase “as you can see” is a chilling reference to acts of thuggery against unaccompanied juvenile refugees, to whom a particular duty of care is owed. Living on their own in isolated locations, these vulnerable young refugees have reported being harassed, intimidated and physically <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/29/we-will-fg-kill-you-beaten-nauru-refugees-fear-their-lives">beaten by groups of men</a> on motorbikes. </p>
<p>These attacks <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/28/child-refugees-australia-sent-to-nauru-report-beatings-and-death-threats">were reported</a> to authorities, including police and Save the Children, which is contracted to care for the refugees.</p>
<p>After seeing the letter, refugees again reported their fears to these authorities. The government has <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/18/nauru-denies-refugees-danger-after-letters-threatening-bad-things-sent">dismissed their concerns</a>. They have not received any guarantees to safeguard their welfare and remain in great fear.</p>
<h2>Australia in denial of its responsibility</h2>
<p>Nauruan authorities reportedly responded that Australia’s Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) should be the one to address the refugees’ concerns. Australian Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has already washed his hands of his obligations. His spokesman <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-28/teenagers-fear-for-lives-on-nauru/5848700">has stated</a> that any attack on a person settled on Nauru “is wholly a matter for Nauru”. </p>
<p>This is a blatant abrogation of responsibility. In the international context, it demonstrates a total disregard for the spirit of the Refugee Convention. Regionally, it evidences a disturbing indifference to the volatile and increasingly violent conditions that Australian policy has generated in neighbouring states such as Papua New Guinea and Nauru. </p>
<p>By exploiting its political and economic power over former Australian protectorates for domestic political ends, Australia has created conditions that serve to foment unrest with potentially lethal consequences.</p>
<p>The letter states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… we cannot see and tolerate that Australia Government headache (refugees) [is] making our lives crashing and bringing down to the ground.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, even as the letter scapegoats refugees, it holds Australia responsible for the new elements introduced to “our small and congested community”. It argues that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nauru is a conservative country, it is not a multicultural country so resettling refugees means that inducing [sic] culture from different countries and we think that we are never been ready for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Detention camps and their social and physical infrastructure – personnel, equipment, environmental features – are visible markers of Australian power. Their imposition compounds the legacy of Australia’s colonial impositions, one of irreversible environmental destruction and serious economic and political damage.</p>
<h2>A once welcoming culture poisoned</h2>
<p>In diagnosing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_(politics)">nativist</a> sentiment of this letter, we wish to emphasise the dangerous conditions Australia has irresponsibly engendered in a small and vulnerable neighbour. Already disadvantaged, Nauruans are being called upon to assume Australians’ responsibilities. Our failure to fulfil our international obligations to refugees within our own expansive borders and our outsourcing of these to small, resource-poor societies lies at the heart of the ugly and violent sentiments expressed in the letter.</p>
<p>Such sentiments represent an erosion of Pacific communities’ traditional values of hospitality. At a recent Australian Studies conference, colleagues from the region voiced distress at this perversion of core aspects of their societies and cultures. In 2001, when the first asylum seekers landed on Nauru under the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-were-70-of-people-sent-to-nauru-under-the-pacific-solution-resettled-in-australia-16947">Pacific Solution</a>, Nauruans greeted them with a welcome dance. Today Nauru and Australia are both harsher and lesser societies.</p>
<p>The cultivation of nativism in place of values of generosity has taken a disturbing turn on Nauru. Several refugees have expressed the sense that underlying political agendas are driving it: “we are just being kicked around for politics”.</p>
<p>We call on Minister Morrison and DIAC to assume their ethical and legal responsibility to protect unaccompanied minors and other recognised refugees whom the Australian government has placed on Nauru. Australia should immediately reassess a policy that has proved so destructive in its effects, as refugees continue to be resettled in a climate of fear and uncertainty. </p>
<p>The letter campaign is the latest chilling symptom of the toxic effects of Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-no-advantage-myth-in-refugee-processing-10940">“no advantage” policy</a>. That it invokes the horrific spectre of ethnic cleansing is an indictment of the great wrong we have perpetrated in our region.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34356/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suvendrini Perera receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the group Writing Through Fences, whose members are mostly writers in immigration detention.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph Pugliese does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Refugees settled on Nauru woke on Monday to find an ominous letter, signed “Youth of Republic of Nauru”, had been delivered overnight. Copies had been left at shops, homes, workplaces employing refugees…Suvendrini Perera, Professor of Cultural Analysis in the School of Media Culture & Creative Arts and Deputy Director of the Australia-Asia-Pacific Institute, Curtin UniversityJoseph Pugliese, Professor of Cultural Studies and Research Director of the Department of Media, Music, Communication and Cultural Studies, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.