Australia’s refusal to take in the 460 or so Afghan refugees currently crammed on a Norwegian cargo ship off Christmas Island is drawing fire from across the world. And the fire and the appeals to reconsider its stand are coming not just from idealistic groups and human rights organizations, but also from hardheaded politicians — some of them leaders of countries that are favorite destinations of asylum seekers.
Australia has legitimate fears about the effects of holding its doors open to all those who want to come. There is no doubt that those fears must be addressed. However, the time to discuss them is not when 400-odd sick and hungry people, women and children among them, are waiting on board a cargo ship that is not equipped to carry passengers.
The key question here is that of responsibility. Who is responsible for the refugees? Indonesia in whose waters they were picked up, or Norway where the Tampa is registered or Australia? Mary Robertson, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, has pointed out, as the international law stands now, it is Australia that is primarily responsible for them. The Geneva Convention on Refugees, to which it is a signatory, states that refugees must be provided for at the nearest port. Christmas Island is that nearest port.
The standoff is partly politics. Prime Minister John Howard wants to play the tough guy in the hope that Australians will like it. There is an election on the horizon and he is not seen as strong. The Australians do like it. Opinion polls suggest that a staggering 98 percent of them support his hard line. Perhaps that is not so surprising: although Australia has accepted immigrants from all over the world, there is a strong redneck tradition running through Australian society — as indigenous Aborigines still know to their cost. Immigrants and refugees who are not white or willing to accept total assimilation into Australia’s Westernized culture are regarded with suspicion.
Prime Minister Howard tries to justify his stand on the grounds that if he lets the Afghans in, it will send a signal to all those other Afghan refugees in camps in Iran and Pakistan, not to mention the millions of would-be economic migrants elsewhere in the world, that the country is a pushover, that all they have to do is arrive on its doorstep looking pathetic and desperate and they will be let in. There is without doubt a numbers issue: there are hundreds of thousands of displaced persons within Afghanistan and a further three-and-a-half million in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan. Many might indeed want to head to a life of freedom, safety and comfort in Australia.
But there is more to this than a mere fear of numbers. If the boat people had been white Europeans, they would have been welcomed with open arms. Australia may be today a multicultural society, but its multiculturalism has decided limits. It is a multiculturalism that is secular, materialistic and Westernized. If it means interesting ethnic restaurants, unusual and colorful clothes and street festivals with dancing and music, that is most acceptable. Anything more — such as a different lifestyle and a faith, rigorously maintained; that is seen as a threat. This is the reality behind Australia’s opposition to the Afghan refugees.
