|
March 13, 2008
Anthony Burke, writing in the Canberra Times, argues that there needs to be a shift in Australia's security thinking away from Fortress Australia, though he does not use this term. He says:
When the Howard government sent SAS commandos to board the MV Tampa in the last week of August 2001, something profound and disturbing happened to Australia's national security policy. Rather than being focused on threats from other states, nuclear proliferation or terrorism, Australia was now seeking security from vulnerable people fleeing abusive regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, while putting its own security and wellbeing at risk. As they were placed in long-term detention in the Pacific, and other asylum-seekers were incarcerated at Woomera, Port Hedland and Villawood, naval and air force units were tasked to patrol our northern approaches, and preventing "illegal immigration" became a core mission of our defence forces.
What the Howard conservatives call illegal immigration is deemed to be an issue of national security. I've always seen this in similar terms to the US Republicans wanting the build a wall across the southern US to keep out illegal immigrants. The detention camps are part and parcel of Fortress Australia obsessed with national security. Australia was bunkering down in a hostile and threatening world. The One Nation Conservative's dog whistle equation was asylum seekers = terrorists.
This approach continues under Rudd Labor. Despite softening the previous government's harsh approach to detaining asylum-seekers, it is still building a big detention centre at Christmas Island. What will the new defence white paper and a broad reassessment of Australia's national security strategy do about this issue of Fortress Australia?
Update
Hugh White, writing in The Australian, says:
It is much likelier that within 10 years the West will have withdrawn from Afghanistan, leaving it much as it has always been. In the meantime it makes sense for Australia to make a modest contribution to the Western coalition, as a demonstration of support for the US. Such symbolic deployments have been part of the fabric of Australia's approach to alliance management for decades. As such they can be a cost-effective form of policy. But they are cost-effective only where the costs and risks are low. The more troops we send, and the more risks they face, the less effective the policy becomes.
It's the old insurance policy argument.
|
Could we use the more appropriate term 'asylum shopper'. Can someone point out the law, rule or understanding that people have the right to enter the country of their choice without regard to entry permits etc. Isn't it a bit odd that the Labor Party has re-established the permit system for aboriginal land yet somehow seems to think no permit is needed to enter Oz?