Rudd’s bluff uses the Pacific again
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s announcement of a harsh new asylum seeker policy is a gamble that he thinks will pay off for his Labor party desperate to neutralize this potent issue ahead of a looming election.
The decision to send all boat people for processing and resettlement in PNG is a huge bluff – Rudd is calculating that asylum seekers will no longer want to come to Australia now, if they know that there is no hope for resettlement and instead they will wind up permanently in PNG. It may stop the boats temporarily but is it likely to work long term?
Many observers see in this policy a political quick-fix that is not a long term solution, but it is difficult to meaningfully analyse the situation since there is still very little detail available. Rudd must know that there will be substantial protests and legal action. Courts in Australia and PNG will likely be asked to rule on whether this policy is even constitutional. The previous “Malaysian Solution” was thrown out by the Australian High Court, as was a previous attempt by Australia to deploy police to PNG some years ago by the PNG High Court.
The reality of this policy long term provokes many questions – where will these new “citizens” be resettled in a country where all land is customarily owned? What jobs can they get? Will this cause resentment from locals angry that refugees get better treatment than themselves? Many ordinary Papuan New Guineans will become NIMBYS on this – Not In My Backyard.
There are many who see this latest policy as another attempt by Australia to “dump” its refugee “problem” on its island neighbours, who are far from being in a position to shoulder the responsibilities given their own internal challenges. Cynics will see in this new policy not only a “quick fix” but one that Rudd knows may well be challenged and thrown out – but since the legal process will take time, this policy will buy Labor enough time leading into the election for them to claim they have “solved” the “crisis” even if the boats stop for just the next few weeks. If they win the election (against the odds) is this policy workable? How can PNG possibly accommodate the projected numbers of 30,000 refugees per year?
Australia has every right to control its borders – it is indeed the first responsibility of any government to secure its nation’s borders. It also makes sense to work towards a “regional solution”. But there has been a great deal of hysteria whipped up in Australia over numbers of arrivals and the whole issue has been “poisoned by politics” as one Labor Minister, Jason Clair, put it last week. Australia needs to take on more refugees than it has so far and its island neighbours deserve more than being the patsy for policy-on-the-run.
Dame Carol Kidu in PNG says, “it’s called the PNG Solution but I think it’s more of an Australian Solution”.
From a Pacific perspective, it is hard not to see this as another attempt by Australia to offload a domestic problem onto its neighbours. Once again Pacific leaders have taken the carrot dangling in front of them, seeing in this an opportunity for more aid, more business and more potential leverage, but they are facing a growing backlash from their own citizenry about the impact on grassroots. Given the general failure of successive PNG governments to provide adequate service delivery to its own citizens, in areas like health and education, it will be a hard sell to its own people. The majority of opinions being circulated on social media forums like PNG’s Sharp Talk are overwhelmingly negative. Much of the sentiment can be summarized in one post:
”The PNG Government has failed to provide basic rights and needs for Papua New Guinean citizens. It has turned its back on its closest neighbour and Melanesian brothers and sisters of West Papua. What makes them think they are going to prioritise making these rights for refugees over their own citizens?”
PNG Opposition leader Belden Namah told the ABC that the issue in PNG is no longer about needing money but better financial management.
But before everyone jumps to the conclusion that PNG has been “bullied” into a bad deal, consider the possible leverage this situation gives to PNG. O’Neill is a shrewd political operator, and sensing Australia’s desperation on this, the PNG government may well have done this deal on the understanding that it will give PNG more opportunity to call the shots on a range of policy areas. As Stephen Howes points out, O’Neill is already claiming credit for being the first PNG PM to get Australia to align its $500 million per year aid program more towards PNG national objectives. As PNG grows in importance due to its booming economy and strategic position, it is tempting to wonder whether Australia needs PNG now more than PNG needs Australia.
O’Neill is also gambling here. If the boats do stop then opposition within PNG is likely to be muted over time, especially as some communities like Manus see benefits. But if the boats keep coming and substantial numbers of refugees want to be resettled in PNG then O’Neill’s government will likely face a serious backlash. Domestic opposition to this is already building.
Another element for the Pacific to consider is the potential implications involved in a “regional solution”. There are already reports that the Solomon Islands have been approached to accept refugees as part of a wider resettlement plan. It means that Pacific nations, long immune to global refugee issues, will now have to start formulating their own national policy around potential refugee intakes. After decades in splendid isolation, Pacific nations will likely be called upon to become global citizens and also accept a limited number of refugees. Simply saying that “we have no capacity to accept refugees” is hard to maintain when poor countries like Pakistan and Jordan are dealing with literally millions of refugees camped on their territory.
At a time when Pacific islands are already talking about the potential for climate refugees and access themselves for resettlement, it is time for Pacific nations to realize they are being drawn into a global issue and, as global citizens, work out what are their rights and responsibilities so they have policies in place. Otherwise they risk being reactive when big regional players come calling with “urgent” new policy dilemmas they need help with.
