Cambodia deal: another stain on our reputation
Updated
The refugee resettlement deal with
Cambodia goes against our reputation as a responsible international
citizen and respecter of international norms, writes Tim Mayfield.
TheCambodia goes against our reputation as a responsible international
citizen and respecter of international norms, writes Tim Mayfield.
Abbott Government's prioritisation of asylum seeker policy over
Australia's role as a regional leader and human rights advocate is once
again on display via the soon-to-be consummated arrangement with
Cambodia to resettle refugees from Australia's offshore processing
centre in Nauru.
Indeed, this is just the most recent chapter in
the history of foreign policy misadventure that has occurred as a result
of Australia's narrow approach to border security since Kevin Rudd
announced his "regional resettlement arrangement" with Papua New Guinea
prior to the 2013 Federal Election.
The long line of missteps
since the election includes timidity in Sri Lanka, overzealousness in
India, and benign contempt for Indonesian sovereignty.
The latest deal,
in which asylum seekers who are found to be genuine refugees will be
voluntarily resettled in Cambodia no doubt in exchange for bucket-loads
of cash, is indicative of a repositioning of Australia's foreign policy
that is grounded in notions of realpolitik and a more narrowly defined
understanding of the national interest.
This is because such an
agreement will inevitably compromise Australia's ability to exert
pressure on the authoritarian rule of prime minister Hun Sen and
undermine Australia's aspirations to regional leadership.
To anyone who doubts this claim, consider this: on January 28 this year, Australia publically castigated Cambodia
at the United Nations for human rights abuses, "particularly the
disproportionate violence against protestors, including detention
without trial". Less than a month later, Julie Bishop was in Phnom Penh
proposing the plan that is about to come to fruition.
I seriously doubt the world will be hearing from Australia on Cambodia's deteriorating human rights record again anytime soon.
The Cambodian announcement follows on in the same spirit as the last major immigration controversy, in which 157 Tamil asylum seekers were moved to offshore detention in Nauru after being held at sea for almost two months.
That move followed Scott Morrison's dubious
request to the Indian government that it accept the repatriation of all
those aboard the ship on the basis that their boat embarked from India.
Unsurprisingly, the appeal was rebuffed by New Delhi in all cases
except where the individuals were proven to be Indian citizens.
One
can only imagine what the Indian government (and the rest of the region
for that matter) made of Australia's overtures given their own
substantial refugee flows.
The above episodes demonstrate the
incongruity between the external manifestations of Australia's 'stop the
boats' policy and our reputation as a responsible international citizen
and respecter of international norms.
Not only are Government
delegations such as the one that made its way to India increasingly
futile and counter-productive, they also represent an increasing
preference by the Abbott Government for unilateral action and
narrowly-focused bilateral negotiations over multilateral engagement in
the region.
Nowhere has this shift been more evident than in
Australia's burgeoning relationship with Sri Lanka. Right from the
beginning of his tenure as PM, Tony Abbott's approach to this bilateral
relationship has been problematic.
For example, his failure to even raise the question of human rights at the 2013 edition of CHOGM held in Colombo (while
his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper boycotted the meeting and UK PM
David Cameron toured the war-torn north of the country), undermined Australia's reputation as a nation committed to speaking out on abuses wherever they occur.
This
was followed by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison's trip to Sri Lanka
for the commissioning of two patrol vessels donated by Australia to
assist with local anti-people smuggling efforts. In making this gift,
Australia has provided material support to a regime tainted by its
brutal response to the Tamil separatist movement while countries such as
the US and UK are working with the UN Human Rights Council to establish
an international inquiry into the conflict.
While treating Sri
Lanka as a pariah state is no way to bring it back into the
international fold after its bloody civil war with the Tamil Tigers,
neither is the opposite action of uncritically pandering to the
government of president Mahinda Rajapaksa on the basis that any
criticism might reduce Sri Lanka's cooperation in reducing refugee
flows.
While our actions in Cambodia, India and Sri Lanka may be
justifiable in the pursuit of short-term tactical victories over people
smugglers, they represent a potentially damaging shift away from
Australia's traditional emphasis on multilateral organisations such as
APEC and the ASEAN Regional Forum.
Australia will no doubt
continue to participate enthusiastically in these gatherings and
advocate the merits of regional consensus on matters such as trade and
security. However, our partners in the Asia-Pacific will be taking note
of the disparity between our words and actions.
The message here
is that Australia's domestic interests, including the maintenance of
secure borders, can be achieved without unnecessarily championing
cynical bilateral relationships over multilateral engagement. Cutting a
deal with Cambodia, one of the poorest nations in our neighbourhood,
only serves to damage our reputation abroad.
Tim Mayfield is
the executive officer to the Chancellor of the ANU. He previously worked
for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Department of
Defence. View his full profile here.
Topics:
refugees,
world-politics
refugees,
world-politics
First posted
No comments:
Post a Comment