Canberra-based Daniel Oakman argues that Australia continues to demonstrate its insularity, nationalism and racism in its policies and public attitudes towards refugees. Oakman, who is conducting doctorate studies at the Australian National University's Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, says that Australia's compassion for poorer nations has diminished as it has grown richer."Most Australians believe we have a moral responsibility to provide assistance to people suffering terrible poverty in other countries", proclaimed Graham Tupper, executive director of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, which represents 95 non-governmental aid organisations.Tupper was responding to a survey conducted six months ago charting support for overseas assistance at around 85 per cent, with almost 60 per cent claiming "strong support" for foreign aid. With the usual rhetorical flourish applied by Australia’s foreign minister, Alexander Downer, Australians were left feeling generous and self-satisfied. "Australians believe we should give aid to look after those less fortunate, for humanitarian and moral reasons, and because Australia is wealthy and can afford it," he said.These comments, however, seem strangely empty and out of kilter in the light of recent developments in Afghanistan and the treatment of asylum seekers by Australian authorities. Compare the strong support for overseas assistance against the 70 per cent of Australians who supported the decision of Prime Minister John Howard's government to turn away the 433 Afghani asylum seekers aboard the Norwegian cargo vessel, the Tampa. The limit of Australian tolerance and generosity is clear. A degree of compassion is extended to those who remain patiently in their own countries, but not if they attempt to enter Australia in search of a better life.Take another comparison. The recent cost of patrolling the Timor Sea and the Indian Ocean in search of asylum seekers has reached A$160 million ($83.2 million), increasing by A$3 million ($1.6 million) each day. Including the A$20 million ($10.4 million) dangled in the face of impoverished island of Nauru, which accepted the Tampa’s human cargo, the total cost of this surveillance and interception runs to almost a billion dollars a year. Downer’s pledge of A$14.3 million ($7.4 million) toward the delivery of humanitarian assistance to displaced refugees in South West Asia, one month after the Tampa crises, seemed a laughably inadequate sum.Curiously, Australia’s entire overseas aid budget for 2001-02 stands at A$1.73 billion ($900 million), marginally higher than what is spent annually on border protection from refugees. What is also interesting is that few commentators – and even fewer politicians and government officials -- make the connection that an international commitment to overseas assistance, the promotion of peace and reconstruction might reverse the flow of refugees and reduce Australia’s need for expensive coastal surveillance.If foreign aid is a barometer of a government’s awareness and concern for the world outside its borders, then as Australia has grown richer compassion for poorer nations has diminished. Since the mid-1960s aid as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) has declined steadily, from 0.56 per cent in 1967 to 0.38 per cent in 1987. Currently expenditure is at a historic low of 0.25 per cent of GDP, well below the recommended target of 0.7 per cent set by the United Nations. But, this figure is above the donor average of 0.22 per cent, as Downer often emphasises. In less abstract terms, Australia spends just $1.70 per capita a week on humanitarian aid. We also need to remember that a substantial portion of this funding comes back to Australia as goods and services purchased by recipient nations. The insistence on large-scale, economically tied projects can be seen clearly with the example of the "My Thuan" bridge completed last year in Vietnam, built by Australian companies. As Downer said, Australia’s aid programme must "remain identifiably Australian - it is a reflection of Australian values and is a projection of those values abroad". Indeed, the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) noted proudly that the bridge had been dubbed "the Australian Bridge".Cultural insecurity and a reluctance to engage genuinely and positively with the wider region still influence the scope and nature of Australia’s overseas assistance program. The combination of the current crises over refugees, the reluctance to embrace a more compassionate and generous vision of Australian regional presence and the diminished emphasis on humanitarian assistance suggest a mean future. Sadly, the legacy of insularity, exclusionary nationalism and racism -- which has been a recurring theme in Australia’s history -- appears to be with us still.
Displaced Tamil civilians watch, as Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa (not seen) arrives at the Manik Farm refugee camp, on the outskirts of the northern Sri Lankan town of Vavuniya, December ...
