Howard in Iraq - 'Its about (err 'not about') the oil stupid!

On 6 July the SMH reported "Howard ended any suggestion of an Australian troop withdrawal before the election by saying the Government remained committed to the presence in Iraq despite the violence and "our frustration at the rate of political progress". While doing so he introduced securing Iraq's vast oil reserves as the latest reason why success in Iraq was "all the more critical".

When Dr ('I am the best Defence Minister ever') Nelson stuck his bouffant over the trench to reaffirm the bleeding obvious to anyone who makes the slightest effort to really understand what is behind the Iraq fiasco, he has been peppered by friendly fire.

In 2003 The Guardian reported "...US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil....

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war."

Crikey, poor Brendie has copped a bucketing for reaffirming what the neocon hawks knew in their collective hearts of darkness from the outset. This was about getting the strategic jump on securing Iraq's oil reserves and positioning the US to bash the next domino, Iran. Meanwhile world peace and Middle Eastern stability has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Methinks Bush and his cronies and his bewildered 'mates', Blair and Howard, are going to have a tad of trouble in securing their legacy when all the grubby facts are known and the bleached bones of the wasted dead are forensically examined for cause and effect.

Refugees in Australia - Q & A (xii) - What other International Conventions are relevant to asylum seekers?

The Refugee Convention is of course not the only convention that deals with situations of persecution and with the plight of those facing or fleeing gross human rights violations.

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides in Article 14(1) that:

“Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

This is a fundamental human right for all people.

Article 3.1 of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ('CAT') (signed by Australia on 7 September 1989) provides that:

“No State Party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”

The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR') (signed by Australia on 13 November 1980) provides that:

“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life” [Article 6(1)]
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.” [Article 7]
“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.” [Article 9.1]
“Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.” [Article 9.4]

Article 37 of The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (ratified by Australia on 17 December 1990) sets out important rights for children in relation to detention. This convention states that children should only be detained as a last resort, and then only for the shortest period of time. Any detention of children must be subject to periodic judicial review. Yet in Australia children who seek asylum in Australia but arrive without authorisation have no opportunity to challenge the deprivation of liberty in a fair hearing, nor are there periodic reviews of their detention.

Amnesty International has produced a number of documents, most notably the Fundamental standards for the protection of refugees which set out a number of procedural safeguards which are essential for identifying persons who would be at risk of serious human rights violations if returned against their will to the country they have fled or to some other country. These principles are based on international standards, such as are set out in the above international treaties and the relevant conclusions adopted by the UNHCR.

A positive step was made in this direction when the Senate Legal And Constitutional Committee in June 2000 in its Report on Australia's Refugee Determination Processes recommended that:

“the Attorney-General's Department, in conjunction with DIMA, examine the most appropriate means by which Australia's laws could be amended so as to explicitly incorporate the non-refoulement obligations of the CAT and ICCPR into domestic law.” [Recommendation 2.2]

Amnesty International continues to campaign for the inclusion of our international obligations to ensure that no-one is forcibly returned to a country where they would face torture or death.

Refugees in Australia - Q & A (xi) - What are the key provisions of the Refugee Convention?

Article 1A(2) defines that the term "refugee" shall apply to any person who:

“owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

Article 1F sets out that the provisions of the Refugee Convention shall not apply to any person if there are solid reasons to consider that they have committed a serious crime - such as a war crime, or a crime against humanity, or a serious non-political crime before they arrived in the country where they are seeking refugee. A person may also be excluded from seeking refugee status if they are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 31.1 of the Refugee Convention provides that:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

In plain English this means that it is not illegal under international law for a person to seek protection from persecution in Australia even if they arrive without proper visas and identity papers. The Refugee Convention recognises the chaotic and sudden nature of refugee flows, and outlines that states must not punish those asylum seekers who have no choice but to arrive in Australia as 'unauthorised entrants'. It is clear that policy such as mandatory detention, which does impose punishment on some asylum seekers, is against the intention of the Refugee Convention.

Critical to Australia's responsibility under the Refugee Convention is to protect from return persons who may be persecuted. Article 33 of the Convention explains the principle of non-refoulement or non-return:

“No contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, member of a particular social group or political opinion.”

This means that Australia has a responsibility to ensure that no person is forcibly returned to a country or state where they would face persecution. This is the basis of Amnesty International's casework for asylum seekers in Australia. Amnesty International works to make sure that no person would be deported from Australia to face persecution, torture or death.

'Why warriors lie down and die' - or 'how the new paternalism looks much like the old'

A reader of this blog (thanks Eilleen) has brought to my attention a book by Richard Trudgen. One can find info on the book on the ARDS website:

"The book “Why Warriors” looks at why the Yolngu (Aboriginal) people of north-east Arnhem Land face the greatest crisis in health and education since European contact. Of course it is easy to point to problems but hard to find answers..."

It is beholden upon right thinking Australians to challenge the racist paternalism of the past, to acknowledge the damage done over generations, and to stop electing politicians that perpetrate simple-minded 'white fella' solutions to complex problems.

Another article worth reading is by Rick Kuhn in the Canberra Times:

"...Underlying problems like child abuse in Aboriginal and, for that matter, other communities, is a lack of resources and power. So far, the Government has eroded resources available to Aborigines, while attacking their capacity to control their own lives.

The "new paternalism" looks a lot like the old paternalism, when indigenous people were pushed around by "Protectors of Aborigines", local bureaucrats and church appointed administrators on reserves or mission stations.

A priority of yesterday's paternalists was often to provide low-paid Aboriginal workers for domestic labour, pastoral and agricultural industries.

The new paternalists are taking steps to provide cheap and uncomplicated access to that recently reinstated Aboriginal asset land.

The Government thought that widespread prejudices against indigenous Australians could be mobilised to justify controlling their lives in ways that would be unacceptable for anyone else, at least until this precedent was set..."

Culture deaths - what do warriors do?

Indigenous peoples in many parts of the world have suffered a form of cultural death, whereby traditional coping strategies and redemptive acts in the face of crisis have lost their meaning. In his book on the terrible reality of a warrior culture's death in the context of the Crow tribe of North America, Jonathan Lear provides a harrowing window on to the fate of many aboriginal societies. His insights resonated with me when I considered the fate of warrior tribes in Australia, as amplified by Charles Taylor in his review of Lear's book:

"In the absence of effective countermeasures, the consequences of closing down a culture are obvious enough from the plight of many indigenous people, including many North American aboriginals: widespread demoralization, abuse of alcohol and drugs, domestic violence, and children who drop out of school, perpetuating the pattern in the next generation. Many well-meaning (and sometimes not so well-meaning) interventions from governments, such as setting up poorly run reservations, seem just to have made the situation worse.

One main reason for the failure of many of these interventions is that they don't manage to imagine the lives of the supposed beneficiaries themselves or engage with their feelings; and so they can't break the cycle of apathy, despair, and self-destructive behavior, and this induces further apathy and despair. A program imposed from outside can only help if it can support a project espoused by the group itself. And here is where Lear's book breaks new ground, in an extremely interesting way...

Lear sees the avoidance of despair as the indispensable condition in which a community can respond creatively to the plight of culture death. And it is only this kind of creative response from within—one that draws on the community's resources and traditions to come up with a new understanding of the ends of life—that can avoid the spiral of apathy and social decay which is the lot of so many such societies."

What a shame Brough & Howard could'nt be bothered to develop genuine bridges to these communities, built on an acknowledgment of the profound cultural loss and terrible hurt wrought by the demands of the mainstream political economy and enforced social acculturation.

Refugees in Australia - Q & A (x) - Which treaty relates to Refugees?

The principle instrument for the international protection of refugees is the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ('the Refugee Convention') and the 1967 amendment entitled the Protocol Relating to Refugees. Australia ratified the Refugee Convention on 22 January 1954 and the Protocol on 13 December 1973. While Australia remains a signatory to these instruments, it is bound by their provisions.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is responsible for overseeing the Refugee Convention and assisting refugees. Their website contains much information regarding the Refugee Convention, including a special section on Protecting Refugees.

This site includes:

• Text of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol.
• The most frequently asked questions about the Convention, and their answers.
• Signing on could make all the difference - why should countries sign on to the Convention?

Howard's 'attack' on child abuse in remote NT communities - what should be done?

While the journalistic commentariat lines up behind Howard's totally inappropriate approach to the crisis in child care amongst remote indigenous communities, it begs the question, what should have been happening in these communities and what should be done now?

It is amazing that Howard's cheer squad is'nt asking why the resources that mainstream society take for granted have not been provided adequately to remote communities. From my perspective, the whole sorry story is a product of the ongoing malaise of colonization, cultural oppression, disempowerment and dispossession. Faced with the grinding reality of deep seated racism, is it really so surprising that these communities are often awash with substance abuse and child neglect? Surprise surprise, we also find these communities have been grappling with totally inadequate official support for community development programs and resources to address substance abuse problems and women's and children's health & welfare.

Radio National's Health Report this morning was illuminating.

Another poor effort by ABC's Insiders to grapple with PM Howard's child abuse intervention in NT

I have sent another comment to Insiders this morning:

"Another breath taking serving on the Howard 'law & order' intervention. Would Howard stoop so low as to play politics with the care of children? Oh yes! He's done it before with Tampa and the Pacific Solution.

Glen's (is this the same Glen Milne who used to have a pretty good grip on what's right and wrong, and whom I considered a friend?) self righteous, and, dare I say it, self-serving support of coming down hard on remote communities to protect children is disingenuous and plays to a paternalistic template that we should have moved beyond by now; and Malcolm is just not bright enough.

Karen made a fist of looking for balance in the strategy, but frankly there is no balance. This is all about politics, and your little chat about early elections underlined that in spades. Come on people, earn your dough and connect the dotted lines.

If Howard was to say sorry and make serious efforts to build genuine bridges to decolonize indigenous people, the path to social rectitude and genuine community would take a great leap forward. Until mainstream society values these people and acknowledges the worth and genius of their ancient culture Australia will be a lesser place than it could be. We have much to learn from the original custodians, especially about the significance of place and community.

Howard has turned demonization of minorities into an art form, which he cashes in on at election time. This one is perfect because protecting children is akin to motherhood. Pity about the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal men in remote areas trying to retain some semblance of dignity in the face of displacement and dispossession. Aboriginal people have been colonized, marginalized and demonized by successive paternalistic regimes that have reinforced the idea that they are inferior and in need of acculturation and integration.

As if our model of isolated, unhappy individuals (numbed by the daily telly and sporting circuses), eking out a wage slave existence in Australia's endless dormitory suburbs, is a template for traditional tribal communities to aspire to. Its all very well for middle class journos on a nice wicket to wax lyrical about interventions and law and order, but please use your collective wit to see beyond law and order and control, which is the tired old language of the colonizer and 'masta'. Can't we grow up? "